Calgary Stoney Trail [Ring Road]

[craner]

Originally Posted by Pegasus

Province commits $70 million to replace the eastbound Stoney Trail bridge over Bow River (by Chaparral in the south) https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/province-comm...ey-trail-bridge-over-bow-river-1.5110693. Bridge was built in 1975.

The South Bow River Project will also include widening the westbound bridge and building a new standalone pedestrian bridge. It is claimed it will improve safety but announcement doesn't say how fog will addressed (like when there was a multi-car pileup a few years ago).

This is good - excited to see it happening but I’m with Mazrim - additional lanes on the NE section, particularly south of 16th Ave., should be a higher priority.

I wonder if they will try to re-use the existing concrete piers on the new eastbound Bow River bridge ?

[Mykie]

I mean... if the bridge is nearing failure and you have to replace it within 5 years anyway, then fixing the mild inconvenience of the NE is not more important.

[Pegasus]

Originally Posted by craner

I wonder if they will try to re-use the existing concrete piers on the new eastbound Bow River bridge ?

And I wonder what they are planning to do to improve safety (other than adding new lanes), as mentioned during the press conference? All I can think of to avoid another 50 car pile-up are permanent fog detection and warning signs . . . but you don't need to wait for a new bridge to do that! (Perhaps fog warning will be even more necessary once both EB and WB traffic is crammed onto a single bridge).

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by craner

This is good - excited to see it happening but I’m with Mazrim - additional lanes on the NE section, particularly south of 16th Ave., should be a higher priority.

I wonder if they will try to re-use the existing concrete piers on the new eastbound Bow River bridge ?

I believe the province has been doing a design study for over a year to add one lane in each direction between 17 Ave S.E. and the #1 Highway. I can't see it costing all that much unless they need to do something major to the interchanges.

[craner]

^That’s good news.
It looks like all the bridges were built wide enough to accommodate at least one more lane .

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by craner

^That’s good news.
It looks like all the bridges were built wide enough to accommodate at least one more lane .

If that's the case I can't see that project costing much more than $20 million. Maybe they'll announce it once the study is done and do it next spring or summer.

[Pegasus]

The Global traffic 'copter just showed the new ramps open from SB Macleod Trail to 22x. They said the signage was confusing not clearly stating that there are now 2 exits - one for WB 22x followed by one for EB 22x (which now crosses Macleod on the new south bridge).

[yakra]

Does OpenStreetMap have things right? It shows a full freeway between 6 St and McKevitt, marked as 201, with Exit 6 for 6th and Exit 8 for McKevitt.
In particular, is it actually signed in the field as 201 along that segment now?

[YYCguys]

Originally Posted by yakra

Does OpenStreetMap have things right? It shows a full freeway between 6 St and McKevitt, marked as 201, with Exit 6 for 6th and Exit 8 for McKevitt.
In particular, is it actually signed in the field as 201 along that segment now?

Hey that’s a really cool map! Thanks! I admit that I’m a bit of a map geek!

[Mykie]

Originally Posted by yakra

Does OpenStreetMap have things right? It shows a full freeway between 6 St and McKevitt, marked as 201, with Exit 6 for 6th and Exit 8 for McKevitt.
In particular, is it actually signed in the field as 201 along that segment now?

More or less. It's not a "full freeway" yet as the limit is 60 kph and then there's still crossovers as the EB bridges over the tracks and Macleod are not ready yet, nor is WB mainline from before McKevitt, which is not accurately depicted. Overhead sign gantries have been quickly going up in recent weeks, so yes the whole segment is now signed as 201, as is the former Glenmore Trail between Sarcee and 69.

OSM is actually a little bit behind, as the WB-SB flyover at Macleod/22X is now open as is the final WB-NB ramp, the new WB mainline west of Sarcee is now open, the final SB-WB ramp for Sarcee/Stoney is now open, and the WB exit ramp from Stoney to 69 St is now open. Opening soon will be the new SB-EB loop ramp at Macleod/22X which will simplify life for a lot of people. Initial paving already underway on the NB-WB flyover, which was built at a very impressive pace. Props to the crews down there.

[Hackslack]

Originally Posted by yakra

Does OpenStreetMap have things right? It shows a full freeway between 6 St and McKevitt, marked as 201, with Exit 6 for 6th and Exit 8 for McKevitt.
In particular, is it actually signed in the field as 201 along that segment now?

awesome map!... I didnt realize how massive the 201/Sarcee/Glenmore interchange is until I saw it on this map.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by Hackslack

awesome map!... I didnt realize how massive the 201/Sarcee/Glenmore interchange is until I saw it on this map.

On Saturday I was close to 69 Street so I took a detour and drove down to where it meets Highway 8 and headed west to just outside of the city. I then turned around and came back to see what it looks and feels like coming from that direction. The amount of space under 69 Street is beyond impressive. They were seeding the middle section where the future freeway will eventually go. As you get close to the massive interchange complex there's six lanes. The overhead signage is must be the biggest in Calgary if not the entire province. I need to go back and drive thru more of this complex to get a better idea of just how big it is. The parts I've driven are very impressive. I think we're going to find out very quickly that the city screwed up not building an interchange at Richmond Road/Sarcee.

[Mykie]

The city did a study and analyzed the impact of SWRR on Richmond/Sarcee, I'll take their word for it on the traffic estimations before any other. With a green light on the west leg, we can survive till 2024.

The signs are the same size as the Deerfoot signs approaching Stoney installed in 2012. Overall Sarcee/Glenmore footprint is smaller than both Deerfoot/Stoney interchanges. Recency bias, perhaps.

[davee930]

I still can't believe this massive overengineered road is maxed at 100km/hr. Make the fucking driving test harder like Germany and have mandatory re tests every several years.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by Mykie

The city did a study and analyzed the impact of SWRR on Richmond/Sarcee, I'll take their word for it on the traffic estimations before any other. With a green light on the west leg, we can survive till 2024.

The signs are the same size as the Deerfoot signs approaching Stoney installed in 2012. Overall Sarcee/Glenmore footprint is smaller than both Deerfoot/Stoney interchanges. Recency bias, perhaps.

The study the city had done recommended an interchange but they claim they don't have the funding to build it yet. Not once did they say it's not needed. It's been needed for decades.

I think we're talking different dimensions about the size of the signage. No mention was made about the size of the footprint.

[Hackslack]

Originally Posted by Mykie

The city did a study and analyzed the impact of SWRR on Richmond/Sarcee, I'll take their word for it on the traffic estimations before any other. With a green light on the west leg, we can survive till 2024.

The signs are the same size as the Deerfoot signs approaching Stoney installed in 2012. Overall Sarcee/Glenmore footprint is smaller than both Deerfoot/Stoney interchanges. Recency bias, perhaps.

The smaller footprint is maybe why it seems more massive and dynamic compared to the other interchanges. With a smaller footprint and 3 main arteries intersecting it appears very impressive

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by Hackslack

The smaller footprint is maybe why it seems more massive and dynamic compared to the other interchanges. With a smaller footprint and 3 main arteries intersecting it appears very impressive

There's also the other less major roads that tie into this interchange complex that make it much more impressive than the interchanges with Highway 2. If this interchange also had high speed directional ramps it would likely be the footprint champ as well.

[Mykie]

Deerfoot/22X very much as involved tie-ins live Sarcee/Glenmore, if we're making that a metric now. As for footprint, that's not correct; the interchanges with 3 directional ramps in the province have the smallest footprints of all (16 Ave NW/Stoney when done, Henday/Yellowhead NE, Henday/Gateway). Doesn't much matter, there's no uniform "metric" as to what makes an interchange more impressive than others and the complexity and challenges conquered in the Deerfoot interchanges are more impressive to me as I'm looking at it from an engineering perspective. If big signs and "dynamic" (what even is that in the context of an interchange?) are impressive, that's a fine perspective as well.

[YYCguys]

Originally Posted by davee930

I still can't believe this massive overengineered road is maxed at 100km/hr.

Agreed! Bump it up to 110. And while they’re at it, bump up other speed limits like on John Laurie Blvd, Glenmore, etc (where appropriate of course).

[Hackslack]

Originally Posted by YYCguys

Agreed! Bump it up to 110. And while they’re at it, bump up other speed limits like on John Laurie Blvd, Glenmore, etc (where appropriate of course).

There is likely some engineering requirements that allow for top speeds with respect to on/off ramps locations, number of exits, distance between on/off ramps, hills and turns, etc... I agree though it would be nice to bump up speed limits.