Highways in Canada

[Daveography]

^ Speaking Bow Trail and its interchanges...

http://albertaroads.homestead.com/Calgary/plans/index.html

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

I can't speak for Alberta, but here in Ontario, spending on transportation actually exceeds the provincial gas tax.

In 2015-16, Ontario collected $2.5 billion from its gas tax, and the Ministry of Transportation's budget that year was $3.4 billion.

In some past years, particularly in the 1980s and 1990s (regardless of the party in power), it was miniscule - sometimes less than 1%. Also the federal gas tax almost never goes to transportation.

Honestly, except for the transit transfer (which should be increased to 4 cents), I believe every penny of the gas tax + HST from gas should be dedicated to roads and bridges. No matter what, the money can never be put into general revenues.

If the federal government refuses to transfer gas tax money (or use it on federal jurisdiction transportation projects), they should cut the tax accordingly.

[Airboy]

wow that would have wiped of Mill Creek Ravine and a half dozen more neighborhoods.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

In some past years, particularly in the 1980s and 1990s (regardless of the party in power), it was miniscule - sometimes less than 1%. Also the federal gas tax almost never goes to transportation.

Honestly, except for the transit transfer (which should be increased to 4 cents), I believe every penny of the gas tax + HST from gas should be dedicated to roads and bridges. No matter what, the money can never be put into general revenues.

If the federal government refuses to transfer gas tax money (or use it on federal jurisdiction transportation projects), they should cut the tax accordingly.

I agree except I would go further and say all of it should go to roads unless a transit project was part of a road project. Calgary's expansion of the NW LRT line is a good example of what I'm talking about.

Not spending the funds on what the tax is supposed to be for is no different than a parent creating a college fund and then blowing it all in Vegas. It's immoral and it should be illegal.

[MalcolmTucker]

If the government is spending more than they collect in the purportedly dedicated tax is there a problem? Other than pure and clean gas tax money touching dirty and gross income tax money in the one treasury account?

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Daveography

Can't speak much to most of those, but they were obviously designed to be free-flowing but with lower speed limits than one expects from today's modern freeways. This was a common theme when many of these interchanges were built.

Connors / 98 Ave was an interim design which was to be replaced by a larger interchange connecting criss-crossing freeways around the downtown core as part of the city's METS Plan:

[IMG]http://albertaroads.homestead.com/edmonton/METS/ultimatestage4.jpg[IMG]

See more about that here:
http://albertaroads.homestead.com/edmonton/plans/

Thankfully, that long-term plan was scrapped, but vestiges of it like that interchange remain, and I would love nothing more than to see it pared down into a simpler set of intersections and the excess land returned to being parkland.

So my point stands that you can't look at these with just modern sensibilities without considering the history - the standards at the time, the state of roadway planning in North America, etc. Of course they're not what one would expect of a modern roadway, because they're not modern roadways.

Originally Posted by Daveography

^ Speaking Bow Trail and its interchanges...

http://albertaroads.homestead.com/Calgary/plans/index.html

Thanks for posting those. I don't think just saying they were deliberately designed badly excuses their incompetence and lack of foresight.



Crayons on a map. Whoever this fucktard De Leuw, Cather is did enormous damage to both our cities. I'm sure he ran off with a bag of money and went and destroyed another city.

[Daveography]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Thanks for posting those. I don't think just saying they were deliberately designed badly excuses their incompetence and lack of foresight.

Again, your interpretation of them being "deliberately" designed badly ignores that the standards of the day back then were different than they are today, as were the speed limits we consider acceptable, and the size and types of vehicles expected to use them.

In other words, they were designed for what was needed in the day, and I don't think it fair to expect planners to predict every possible future trend.

Originally Posted by milomilo

Crayons on a map. Whoever this fucktard De Leuw, Cather is did enormous damage to both our cities. I'm sure he ran off with a bag of money and went and destroyed another city.

Perhaps, but at least the plan was never seen through to fruition, and the damage done was thus minimal. But it's hard to place the blame on a single individual when this was the predominant way of thinking of traffic planners all over North America in the 60s.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

If the government is spending more than they collect in the purportedly dedicated tax is there a problem? Other than pure and clean gas tax money touching dirty and gross income tax money in the one treasury account?

If you include the federal part of the gas tax does any province spend more on roads than is collected? I'm talking about on provincial roads.

I don't see a problem with spending more on roads than is collect from the gas tax because people expect part of the general taxes they pay to be spent on building and maintaining roads. My problem is with governments who create so-called dedicated taxes and then use them for other purposes. It's why I'm vehemently opposed to the City of Calgary getting the power to implement a 1% sales tax to build specific projects. If there was a way to force them to only use the money for one purpose, have it sit in a separate account, end the tax when the project was built, etc. I might be okay with it as long as got to vote on the project. But with how things normally go there's no way I want to see them get any additional powers to tax us.

[milomilo]

Just look at those drawings though. The guy clearly had a mental disorder and had a thing for drawing roads where every road had to have a freeflow ramp to every other road. I guarantee no actual thought was put in to whether those interchanges and roads made any sense. It's fine for a lunatic to draw these things on paper, but why he was allowed anywhere near the cities' planning departments is amazing.

I can forgive underestimating road demand and underbuilding roads and intersections or just cheaping out. But the interchanges I've mentioned have no basis in sense, they were just mindless constructions with ramps connecting any which way, seemingly for the sake of building ramps. And just because 'that' the way things were' doesn't mean we should forgive it. I agree it's not just one person's fault but many.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Just look at those drawings though. The guy clearly had a mental disorder and had a thing for drawing roads where every road had to have a freeflow ramp to every other road. I guarantee no actual thought was put in to whether those interchanges and roads made any sense. It's fine for a lunatic to draw these things on paper, but why he was allowed anywhere near the cities' planning departments is amazing.

I can forgive underestimating road demand and underbuilding roads and intersections or just cheaping out. But the interchanges I've mentioned have no basis in sense, they were just mindless constructions with ramps connecting any which way, seemingly for the sake of building ramps. And just because 'that' the way things were' doesn't mean we should forgive it. I agree it's not just one person's fault but many.

milomilo lettin' him have it!

(For what it's worth the whole thing is clearly preposterous, but as Dave pointed out it was the dominant mode of thinking across the continent during the time. Just about every American city was blighted with those types of roads, and every Canadian city of a certain size had plans like Edmonton's drawn up, although I don't think any were even close to being fully built out. There was just something about the sixties...)

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Just look at those drawings though. The guy clearly had a mental disorder and had a thing for drawing roads where every road had to have a freeflow ramp to every other road. I guarantee no actual thought was put in to whether those interchanges and roads made any sense. It's fine for a lunatic to draw these things on paper, but why he was allowed anywhere near the cities' planning departments is amazing.

I can forgive underestimating road demand and underbuilding roads and intersections or just cheaping out. But the interchanges I've mentioned have no basis in sense, they were just mindless constructions with ramps connecting any which way, seemingly for the sake of building ramps. And just because 'that' the way things were' doesn't mean we should forgive it. I agree it's not just one person's fault but many.

It's too bad those plans weren't actually implemented. Properly designed system interchanges are not mindless constructions. What's mindless is cities building what are supposed to be major roads and then putting lights on them, having on and off ramps that are way too short, lack of capacity from Day 1, having no idea what a collector-distributor system is, etc. With all of the land that Edmonton and Calgary have there's no excuse for us to have shitty road networks.

[craner]

Originally Posted by Daveography

^ Speaking Bow Trail and its interchanges...

http://albertaroads.homestead.com/Calgary/plans/index.html

Oh man that Bow Trail plan would have been an absolute disaster for downtown Calgary. Edmonton's plan would have been disasterous as well.

I do wish the TCH plan would have been built through Calgary though.

Thanks for posting that link Dave.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by esquire

milomilo lettin' him have it!

(For what it's worth the whole thing is clearly preposterous, but as Dave pointed out it was the dominant mode of thinking across the continent during the time. Just about every American city was blighted with those types of roads, and every Canadian city of a certain size had plans like Edmonton's drawn up, although I don't think any were even close to being fully built out. There was just something about the sixties...)

Haha sorry I do get a little worked up about these things . Every time I have to merge across three lanes of road just to carry on driving over the Crowchild bridge I get a little angry. What would have been wrong with a single 6 lane bridge and some straight ramps down to lights on Bow trail? So much simpler, better and cheaper!!!

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by craner

Oh man that Bow Trail plan would have been an absolute disaster for downtown Calgary. Edmonton's plan would have been disasterous as well.

I do wish the TCH plan would have been built through Calgary though.

Thanks for posting that link Dave.

I agree that having the TCH be a proper road through Calgary would have ben much better than what we have now, though not with the enormous interchanges they have carelessly drawn/crayoned on those maps.

Those drawings remind me of playing Simcity, where demolishing neighbourhoods and weaving traffic lanes was not the slightest consideration.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I agree that having the TCH be a proper road through Calgary would have ben much better than what we have now, though not with the enormous interchanges they have carelessly drawn/crayoned on those maps.

Those drawings remind me of playing Simcity, where demolishing neighbourhoods and weaving traffic lanes was not the slightest consideration.

In the 1960s they were not really a consideration at all. Rerouting the TCH makes most sense in Calgary though, but to what corridor? It would need a freeway in the ends to connect back.

In Edmonton, if Yellowhead Trail is completed, there is the perfect freeway corridor there. Given the presence of the rail yards, it doesn't really split any communities any more than it does.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

In the 1960s they were not really a consideration at all. Rerouting the TCH makes most sense in Calgary though, but to what corridor? It would need a freeway in the ends to connect back.

In Edmonton, if Yellowhead Trail is completed, there is the perfect freeway corridor there. Given the presence of the rail yards, it doesn't really split any communities any more than it does.

Glenmore Trail in Calgary would be the best option.

[craner]

^Agreed, Glenmore makes sense.
I've always thought it would be good to route the TCH on McKnight and John Laurie coming from the east. It gets a bit dicey trying to extend JL to the TCH in the west though unless you route it down Shag or Sarcee to Crowchild or 16th Ave.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by craner

^Agreed, Glenmore makes sense.
I've always thought it would be good to route the TCH on McKnight and John Laurie coming from the east. It gets a bit dicey trying to extend JL to the TCH in the west though unless you route it down Shag or Sarcee to Crowchild or 16th Ave.

I think the province has plans to do some rerouting east of the city and to use Glenmore Trail. I seldom drive to the far eastern reaches of Glenmore but I can't imagine there are too many places left where they need to build interchanges. They're building two more right now, correct? Outside of the city it should be relatively easily to reroute the highway. On the west end of the city the tie-in to Stoney or whatever they end up calling it (I vote just to use 201) will work out perfectly. It's something that should have been done decades ago.

[lubicon]

Class 6 dangerous goods are banned on the Glenmore Causeway so it makes little sense to make it part of the TCH system. Besides, we now have Stoney Trail which does a decent job circumnavigating the city. And will be better yet once it is finished. It may make more sense to route the TCH along the south side of Calgary on Stoney and then up the west if it is going to be moved at all.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by craner

^Agreed, Glenmore makes sense.
I've always thought it would be good to route the TCH on McKnight and John Laurie coming from the east. It gets a bit dicey trying to extend JL to the TCH in the west though unless you route it down Shag or Sarcee to Crowchild or 16th Ave.

I'm not from Calgary, but I never thought that it was particularly hard to get into central Calgary from either the east or the west. Nor was it particularly hard for through traffic to get around Calgary, especially now that the 201 is complete on the northern side and you can reach southern destinations via the Sarcee Trail/Glenmore Trail.

Generally, my impression was that driving around Calgary was a piece of cake, and that 16 Ave. NE basically catered to local traffic.