Calgary Roads

[craner]

^^Yes & yes.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by craner

^^Yes & yes.

Or will it simply make it an easier place to move through? And is that the desired result for the people that live beside it?

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

My follow up question is should this really be a skeletal road in this section? Will it being a skeletal road make that portion of the city a better place to be?

I am guessing you noticed the same thing I did - 16th Ave near Bowness.

I guess a follow up question could be - would a freeway be better or worse than a wider non-freeway, so capacity was as high.

Taking houses for a freeway is annoying, but for a 10 lane urban boulevard with trees in the middle? hmmm.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

Or will it simply make it an easier place to move through? And is that the desired result for the people that live beside it?

I live right next to it and Crowchild not being a disaster would definitely make my life slightly better. I don't think the opinions of a few potential nimbys like myself should outweigh the needs of the city as a whole, however.

How can the situation be worse though? There's already a huge roadway with equally massive intersections. It's ugly as sin there and I honestly think a Glenmore style solution would make the area nicer.

[sim]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

I've attended many open houses on both sides of the equation. When I get to see the comments on these projects, even though more than 1/2 of the content is on Transit, Pedestrians, Cycling, HOV, and so on, more than 80% of the comments are on the driving experience.

A recent open house had a huge focus on ways to improve all modes of transportation, yet the majority of the comments said things like "You won't get people to switch to public transport by pissing them off" or "HOV will just frustrate everyone." There was distressing lack of comments on the configuration of pathways, bus queue jumps, and crossing improvements. As an aside, my favorite that always shows up all the time is "You would be stupid not to consider a Cloverleaf design. It's much more efficient than a Diamond."

The people the City regularly engages at these sessions end up being the ones who help steer the ultimate direction of the design of a project (not just the roads, mind you. I didn't specifically say road in my last post), and as much as this forum would like to think otherwise, it's actually a decent representation of this city as a whole.

This is true, but it does also get into other rather complex issues such as do people really know what they want. Can people know what they want? And the public is but one stakeholder.

This was recently discussed in one of the transit threads and Byebyebaby also put it well there. What he said nevertheless addresses why road design is not the problem in and of itself, and actually why you are right that people should not often be asked directly about it. At the highest level, people want a liveable community, and that is hard to argue with. There is of course room to discuss on how that is achieved.

Suburban networks are largely proof positive of this mechanism playing out. Everyone wants quiet, safe streets, believing that if streets loop and lollipop to direct traffic onto arterials, this is achieved. Well that works only on an incremental basis and local scale. Unfortunately, streets actually get more dangerous and some select streets become much more noisy (and fragile and congestion prone and etc). And the pattern goes on and on.

Thus, what people want, even if they knew exactly what that was and how to achieve it does have to be balanced with other goals.

[craner]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I live right next to it and Crowchild not being a disaster would definitely make my life slightly better. I don't think the opinions of a few potential nimbys like myself should outweigh the needs of the city as a whole, however.

How can the situation be worse though? There's already a huge roadway with equally massive intersections. It's ugly as sin there and I honestly think a Glenmore style solution would make the area nicer.

I agree and I've thought the same thing about 14th Street SW. How is adding overpasses going to make it worse ?

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

I am guessing you noticed the same thing I did - 16th Ave near Bowness.

I guess a follow up question could be - would a freeway be better or worse than a wider non-freeway, so capacity was as high.

Taking houses for a freeway is annoying, but for a 10 lane urban boulevard with trees in the middle? hmmm.

16th Ave is a problem in general as it switches from skeletal to urban boulevard and back twice as it goes through the city, I'm really not sure how they intend for that to work.

You could actually increase capacity of crowchild by decreasing the speed, more and more studies are showing that high speed roads are subject to random slowdowns much more than slightly slower ones.

That said the lane layout of this portion of crowchild is problematic when looking at capacity, regardless of speed. only having a single lane southbound through is a major issue as is the cut over traffic from 9th to memorial. However those issues can be fixed with far less money than the original plan intended to spend.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I live right next to it and Crowchild not being a disaster would definitely make my life slightly better. I don't think the opinions of a few potential nimbys like myself should outweigh the needs of the city as a whole, however.

How can the situation be worse though? There's already a huge roadway with equally massive intersections. It's ugly as sin there and I honestly think a Glenmore style solution would make the area nicer.

I'm not saying it should be a disaster I'm just not sure you want a Glenmore or Deerfoot out your back door, I know I wouldn't.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by sim

This is true, but it does also get into other rather complex issues such as do people really know what they want. Can people know what they want? And the public is but one stakeholder.

This was recently discussed in one of the transit threads and Byebyebaby also put it well there. What he said nevertheless addresses why road design is not the problem in and of itself, and actually why you are right that people should not often be asked directly about it. At the highest level, people want a liveable community, and that is hard to argue with. There is of course room to discuss on how that is achieved.

Suburban networks are largely proof positive of this mechanism playing out. Everyone wants quiet, safe streets, believing that if streets loop and lollipop to direct traffic onto arterials, this is achieved. Well that works only on an incremental basis and local scale. Unfortunately, streets actually get more dangerous and some select streets become much more noisy (and fragile and congestion prone and etc). And the pattern goes on and on.

Thus, what people want, even if they knew exactly what that was and how to achieve it does have to be balanced with other goals.

This is one area where I think Rolin has gotten it right, the focus should be on the outcome rather than how we get there. If the stakeholders (one of which is the public) defines the outcome they want to see, the planners, designers, engineers, etc. can then take that outcome and design the system to achieve it.

[YYCguys]

With the limited room available to improve Crowchild from 17th Ave S to 24th Ave N, perhaps a stacked freeway in the area would be a good idea (ie: northbound lanes on a bridge above southbound lanes, etc).

[mersar]

Originally Posted by YYCguys

With the limited room available to improve Crowchild from 17th Ave S to 24th Ave N, perhaps a stacked freeway in the area would be a good idea (ie: northbound lanes on a bridge above southbound lanes, etc).

Why is there "limited room"? The city own's the first couple houses adjacent to most of that stretch north of the river, probably 1/2 of the stretch is already quite wide and the costs of stacking it would far outweight land acquisition to just buying out and bulldozing a few dozen houses.

That said, the width of the road isn't the issue in most places. A stacked freeway won't solve traffic lights and inane lane jogging.

[sim]

Originally Posted by craner

I agree and I've thought the same thing about 14th Street SW. How is adding overpasses going to make it worse ?

Well because this is a systems level problem.

Interchanges and freeways beget interchanges and freeways.

If we "fix" this corridor by making it totally free flowing, all you'll see is peak narrowing - more traffic in the same amount of time, even before accounting for generated traffic - which will come from users of existing roads and existing modes.

So now you'll just have higher and more intense volumes on "downstream" streets like 9 Ave, 12 ave, 17 Ave and maybe Memorial, Kensington, etc, until either these are now a new "problem" or their "problem" causes upstream issues all the way to the problem you've just solved.

You'll have reduced transit mode share by widening the relative gap in time savings even before accounting for the fact that access has just been made harder and less attractive (because stairs into an 80,000 vpd traffic abyss aren't all that great), and you'll have increased the barrier effect, even if only psychologically. You'll also watch your accident severity rate go up, and so to, your global emissions.

That's all and only in the short run.

In the long run, because people generally have constant travel time budgets, you'll watch your urban boundaries ever be pushed outward, exacerbating every issue (and more) that I just stated above.

Now you have new problems. A lot of new problems. Unfortunately, you've recently spent a lot of money to fix the problem that has now caused these new problems, that are even more expensive to fix:

Want to make transit competitive again? Well there is burying it or elevating it. Want to "encourage" people to walk again? Throw a greenway down every street, add an expensive and likely underutilized plaza and spend several million in public engagement. Maybe a nice pedestrian bridge..??

If human behaviour were at all analogous to storm run-off, then I'd say, "yeah fix Crowchild." It's not. Crowchild as is, is currently a large benefit.

[CalgaryAlex]

Originally Posted by sim

Well because this is a systems level problem.

Interchanges and freeways beget interchanges and freeways.

If we "fix" this corridor by making it totally free flowing, all you'll see is peak narrowing - more traffic in the same amount of time, even before accounting for generated traffic - which will come from users of existing roads and existing modes.

So now you'll just have higher and more intense volumes on "downstream" streets like 9 Ave, 12 ave, 17 Ave and maybe Memorial, Kensington, etc, until either these are now a new "problem" or their "problem" causes upstream issues all the way to the problem you've just solved.

Couldn't agree more with your entire post.

The general public will never, ever understand that increased capacity (whether due to extra lanes or increased speed) will do nothing to reduce congestion. As soon as Crowchild is more convenient/faster/wider, more people will use it and it will put further strain on peak time road use in this city.

I do believe Crowchild is nonsensical with lane changes, etc. These problems should be looked at, for the sake of clarity and cutting down on stop-and-go bottlenecks. But demolishing houses to add extra lanes or going back to 1950 with a stacked highway (which would be fought tooth and nail by anyone living even remotely close to it) isn't the answer here.

[MalcolmTucker]

I wonder if you could do something like a super 2 express lanes to add more through capacity while retaining everything else as is. Elevate 2 additional lanes from around 17th Ave SW to north of 24th. No on or off, one north, one south. You could also put up collapsible posts to stop the merge then two lane changes in 300 meters that people still attempt. If well integrated, it could also be host to one of the spoke to spoke transit connectors.

[DizzyEdge]

Could you simply trench it with all of the various turnoffs split between Kensington Rd and 5th Ave instead of the current situation where you can merge all directions at each of those? I really prefer a plan where 5th and Kensington road can be walked, biked, etc across at grade, without having to climb up windswept ped overpasses.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by CalgaryAlex

Couldn't agree more with your entire post.

The general public will never, ever understand that increased capacity (whether due to extra lanes or increased speed) will do nothing to reduce congestion. As soon as Crowchild is more convenient/faster/wider, more people will use it and it will put further strain on peak time road use in this city.

I do believe Crowchild is nonsensical with lane changes, etc. These problems should be looked at, for the sake of clarity and cutting down on stop-and-go bottlenecks. But demolishing houses to add extra lanes or going back to 1950 with a stacked highway (which would be fought tooth and nail by anyone living even remotely close to it) isn't the answer here.

Should we just reduce every road to one lane then? If increasing capacity can only increase congestion, the opposite has to be true also?

Apologies for the strawman - but there has to be a middle ground. Solving this problem isn't so much about vastly increasing capacity, but more efficiently using the infrastructure we've got. What's there now is two highly used roads funneling through a neighbourhood street network and then possibly the most stupidly designed interchange on the planet. What we have isn't good for anyone right now, and either doing nothing or decreasing capacity even further will do nothing to make the area friendlier to pedestrians or make the streetscape less hostile.

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

I wonder if you could do something like a super 2 express lanes to add more through capacity while retaining everything else as is. Elevate 2 additional lanes from around 17th Ave SW to north of 24th. No on or off, one north, one south. You could also put up collapsible posts to stop the merge then two lane changes in 300 meters that people still attempt. If well integrated, it could also be host to one of the spoke to spoke transit connectors.

What do you mean by that? That's what you have to do to make that movement, there's no other option. In fact, all traffic from the south heading north has to filter briefly into one lane, it's idiotic and not the fault of the drivers.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Could you simply trench it with all of the various turnoffs split between Kensington Rd and 5th Ave instead of the current situation where you can merge all directions at each of those? I really prefer a plan where 5th and Kensington road can be walked, biked, etc across at grade, without having to climb up windswept ped overpasses.

It's the only option I can see working - elevated would never be accepted, but a trench would decrease noise/ugliness and eliminate the 5 minute wait for lights that everyone is forced to endure right now. Or perhaps a shallower trench and berms either side.

The cost though...

[CalgaryAlex]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Should we just reduce every road to one lane then? If increasing capacity can only increase congestion, the opposite has to be true also?

Apologies for the strawman - but there has to be a middle ground. Solving this problem isn't so much about vastly increasing capacity, but more efficiently using the infrastructure we've got. What's there now is two highly used roads funneling through a neighbourhood street network and then possibly the most stupidly designed interchange on the planet. What we have isn't good for anyone right now, and either doing nothing or decreasing capacity even further will do nothing to make the area friendlier to pedestrians or make the streetscape less hostile.

No, I fully agree that Crowchild needs vast improvements, but you know what people will say in these public consultations: "Add four more lanes!" People who say these things don't understand what that implies in relation to other roads, nor do they understand that congestion will never go away. They also don't understand that it isn't feasible to have a Stoney Trail-style road running along the Crowchild corridor.

I never said that we should decrease capacity. And I definitely agree with you in that we need to take a look at the space Crowchild already takes up and see what can be done with it from an organizational perspective. The lane changes, speed limit variations, clusterfucks of interchanges (btw, 16th/University Dr/Crowchild has baffled me forever), etc., all need to be analyzed and altered.

If they have space (currently a few lots on each side) to implement small-ish interchanges similar to the ones at Charleswood or Brisebois, then that could be a solution. We don't need enormous cloverleaf interchanges for every roadway in the city. Smaller intersections also reduce the effect of a roadway cutting off one community from another.

I'm certain something can be done if planners ignore the incessant banter about "more lanes, more lanes, more lanes" and focus on innovative, progressive solutions (such as reducing speed, as Full Mountain suggested).

One thing I can promise is that when they start to study any and all possibilities available, the average Calgary driver's automatic dismissal of roundabouts will enrage many who are engaged in the process.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by milomilo

What do you mean by that? That's what you have to do to make that movement, there's no other option. In fact, all traffic from the south heading north has to filter briefly into one lane, it's idiotic and not the fault of the drivers.

Eliminate the movement. We have plenty of other intersections without all direction access. Can always turn left at Kensington Road, or take another route to get to Memorial.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by CalgaryAlex

No, I fully agree that Crowchild needs vast improvements, but you know what people will say in these public consultations: "Add four more lanes!" People who say these things don't understand what that implies in relation to other roads, nor do they understand that congestion will never go away. They also don't understand that it isn't feasible to have a Stoney Trail-style road running along the Crowchild corridor.

I never said that we should decrease capacity. And I definitely agree with you in that we need to take a look at the space Crowchild already takes up and see what can be done with it from an organizational perspective. Those crazy interchanges need to be fixed, for sure. The lane changes, speed limit variations, clusterfucks of interchanges (btw, 16th/University Dr/Crowchild has baffled me forever), etc.

If they have space (currently a few lots on each side) to implement small-ish interchanges similar to the ones at Charleswood or Brisebois, then that could be a solution. We don't need enormous cloverleaf interchanges for every roadway in the city. Smaller intersections also reduce the effect of a roadway cutting off one community from another.

I'm certain something can be done if planners ignore the incessant banter about "more lanes, more lanes, more lanes" and focus on innovative, progressive solutions (such as reducing speed, as Full Mountain suggested).

One thing I can promise is that when they start to study any and all possibilities available, the average Calgary driver's automatic dismissal of roundabouts will enrage many who are engaged in the process.

We are in agreement then

I have to say though, any solution worth doing will be enormously expensive I think. It'll be a tough sell and there may well be projects more deserving of the money. But once it's done it would be fair to call the road network there 'complete' and wouldn't need to receive any major new road infrastructure ever again.