Calgary Stoney Trail [Ring Road]

[craner]

^May be cheaper, but not a better idea IMO

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by craner

^May be cheaper, but not a better idea IMO

It would be a horrible idea and hopefully the NDP doesn't screw Calgary over by going this route.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Acey

Sarcee is going to get hammered, as will the Sarcee/16 Ave interchange. I still find myself wondering if it'd have been cheaper to fix Sarcee (8 lanes, free flow, three level interchanges at Bow Trail and 16 Ave) and call it day than it is to dig out the west leg.

Would look a little silly now to rebuild Sarcee/16th again though.

[milomilo]

Far sillier than building a new interchange then demolishing it a few years later? What are your examples? (Not arguing, just interested). The whole SWRR debacle would probably count, granted.

[dmuzika]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

It would be a horrible idea and hopefully the NDP doesn't screw Calgary over by going this route.

I'm curious how this would be a horrible idea? Assuming that Sarcee Trail & 16 Avenue were properly upgraded to 6-8 lane cross-sections with interchanges to complete the ring road. Is it that there are already communities outside the ring? Obviously the preferred option would be the proposed Stoney extension.

[Rollerstud98]

Originally Posted by Acey

What bridge are you even talking about? I'm confused. Cause the bridge that has to be demolished is Sarcee over 16 Ave, and that was built in 1963. Even then, you don't have to demolish it and could just build more bridges to supplement it... but given the maintenance part of the P3 they'd undoubtedly nuke it anyway.

The recent bridge is the 17 Ave bridge... and it looks like you can get 4 lanes each way under there without having to wreck the existing abutments. So it's fine.

If you're saying 1963 is recent, then that's a different discussion altogether.

Are they not in the process of getting ready to redo that interchange as we speak?

[craner]

They are well into improving/supplementing the Sarcee - 16th Ave. interchange but the 1963 bridge is remaining.
I think milomilo's point was they would have to demolish the improvements currently being built if Sarcee was to act as the ring road.

[craner]

Could have had an interchange at Bow & Sarcee already if Craig Burrows wasn't such an idiot.

[Rollerstud98]

Originally Posted by craner

Could have had an interchange at Bow & Sarcee already if Craig Burrows wasn't such an idiot.

Who is he and what did he do?

[craner]

Burrows was an City Alderman in the 2000s (ran for mayor in 2010). As I understand it, the City wanted to build both the 17th Ave. and Bow Tr. interchanges on Sarcee but Burrows, who represented the ward, felt it would be too much at one time and quashed the idea. In the end we were left with an interchange at 17th (including LRT) and a few years later "intersection improvements" were done at Bow.
I shouldn't say he was an idiot, but I thought this particular decision (not to build a Bow Tr. / Sarcee interchange) was idiotic.

[CrossedTheTracks]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Far sillier than building a new interchange then demolishing it a few years later? What are your examples? (Not arguing, just interested). The whole SWRR debacle would probably count, granted.

Flanders Avenue bridge comes to my mind, though that's a relatively minor example. In 1991, the previous bridge was replaced to allow Crowchild to move from 4 to 6 lanes under Flanders Ave -- and then of course replaced last year. 25 years is quite a short lifespan for a bridge, though hardly qualifies as "a few years later".

Lots more examples around here of, "why didn't they just make 'it' a higher capacity in the first place", but I can't think of any other straight-out demolitions of high-cost "young" infrastructure.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by craner

They are well into improving/supplementing the Sarcee - 16th Ave. interchange but the 1963 bridge is remaining.
I think milomilo's point was they would have to demolish the improvements currently being built if Sarcee was to act as the ring road.

Exactly.

Originally Posted by CrossedTheTracks

Flanders Avenue bridge comes to my mind, though that's a relatively minor example. In 1991, the previous bridge was replaced to allow Crowchild to move from 4 to 6 lanes under Flanders Ave -- and then of course replaced last year. 25 years is quite a short lifespan for a bridge, though hardly qualifies as "a few years later".

Lots more examples around here of, "why didn't they just make 'it' a higher capacity in the first place", but I can't think of any other straight-out demolitions of high-cost "young" infrastructure.

I'd say that counts, especially as the new interchange doesn't really seem to provide a huge or neccesary improvement.

[Corndogger]

There's going to be a big job fair on April 1 to hire highly skilled people to build the SW Leg of 201.

http://www.swcrrproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Trades-Fair-Notification.pdf

[holhm22]

Thanks for the update! Always delivering 5seconds.

[craner]

No doubt - thanks 5secs - this is very exciting.

[MalcolmTucker]

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by Acey

Gravel pit construction takes residents in S.W. Calgary by surprise - CTV

Shhhhh!
Nobody tell them there's a 4-lane freeway coming in a few years to replace the gravel pit....
and a 8-lane super-freeway in a few decades.

[MalcolmTucker]

Similar issues to 2006 really. I bet there will be more complaints when they see commercial start going up on the other side of the ROW.

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

I'm doing my Jane's Walk again this year, if anyone here is interested.

If you make it, introduce yourselves!

Ah man, I can't believe this is happening again...I won't be in town on that weekend. I was sad I missed it last time too!

[tenth]

Originally Posted by Acey

Gravel pit construction takes residents in S.W. Calgary by surprise - CTV

I'm right in this area. In talking to my neighbours over the last year, it's really surprising how none of them seemed to understand what was happening with the ring road. It seemed they either 1) weren't aware of the SW ring road at all, or 2) thought it wouldn't start to curl until 37th Street (the portion off of 22x). I bought my place in 2007 and looked at the proposed alignment for the road at the time, which was right in line with where it's ending up. I believe all of the houses in Bridle Estates bordering the road were built after that point. When they were going up, I thought they were nuts buying side-by-side estate homes there, given they would eventually be looking out at an interchange.

The increase in dust from the gravel pit has been a pain with kids, and I'll be disappointed when 24th Street access to 22x closes, but it's temporary and the road will eventually help eliminate a lot of long painful drives down Macleod for people in the area.

EDIT: Communication of the pit certainly could have been better. The first time I was aware of it was a month or 2 back, and I've been pretty diligent in reading up on it. I'm sure it came up at a town hall I don't have time to attend, but a bit more notice would have been nice. Not sure I would/could have done different, but we may have accelerated our plans to move out of the area.