Calgary Roads

[mersar]

Back before Deerfoot was built in the mid 70's Barlow was one continuous road and wasn't fragmented like it is now. The biggest missing link (in terms of the name at least) between 17th and Peigan I'd suspect was done just to try to force traffic out of the residential area along 26th which was likely still being developed along that side at the time and onto Deerfoot.

I don't think we'll see any existing parts renamed, however if the proposed realignment along the east side of the airport actually happens with the same scale of road I can see it being given a different name.

[Stang]

I know that this came up a while back on here (well before the split into SSP Local).

My stance is: numbered roads should exist based on alignment. It's important to the addressing/navigation in the city. 32nd Avenue NW doesn't connect with 32nd Avenue NE. That's fine to me - there's a methodology behind it that still exists today.

Named roads, which I think is more what you are referring to anyway, should be continuous. Sarcee, Barlow, etc.

I understand that at one point they either did connect (as was the case for Barlow) or there was once a plan for them to connect (Sarcee was supposed to continue over the river and connect). But if that's never going to happen, why have two completely separate roads with the same name?

I can only imagine what someone from out of town must think. "I need to go to Westhills. My friend says that's in the SW off of Sarcee. So I'll just turn south on Sarcee from Country Hills Blvd... wait a minute... Silver Springs?"

I know that's what maps and GPS units are for, but it is a bit odd. Do any other cities have this "issue"?

[YYCguys]

Originally Posted by Stang

I can only imagine what someone from out of town must think. "I need to go to Westhills. My friend says that's in the SW off of Sarcee. So I'll just turn south on Sarcee from Country Hills Blvd... wait a minute... Silver Springs?"

Haha! That exact thing happened to me when I first moved to our lovely city!

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by Stang

Do any other cities have this "issue"?

Winnipeg has 2 great examples of both problems being discussed here:

1. A continuous street with at least 7 different names.

2. A single named street with at least 7 disconnected sections.

Plus many, many similar issues.

Calgary is positively easy in comparison. It's what happens as cities grow and change.

[Skeletor]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Winnipeg has 2 great examples of both problems being discussed here:

1. A continuous street with at least 7 different names

Would that be Main? I remember the road changing names a number of times as you drive south from Portage and Main toward St. Vital.

I think these kind of problems are quite common. Even in little wee Brandon, we had Willowdale Cres. that changes to Brandon Ave. as soon as you cross 26th St, then it dead ends at the Keystone Center, only to pick up again 5 blocks east where it continues to 1st St., then offsets a few meters at the intersection and turns into Madison Cres. on the other side.

Parker Blvd. becomes Hilton Ave. as you cross 18th St., and Stickney Ave. turns into McDonald Ave. also as you cross 18th St.

Queens Ave and Ottawa Ave and Brandon Ave all have missing sections many blocks long, and they don't even really line up with each other, yet they share the same name. Aagaard Ave and Daisy Ave do line up and are only separated by one block, yet have different names. Also, Daisy Ave is only one block long and has absolutely no addresses on it. All the buildings face the other streets around it.

Sorry.. got carried away there.. That's only a few of the inconsistencies in one small city.

[entheosfog]

Originally Posted by Stang

I know that this came up a while back on here (well before the split into SSP Local).

My stance is: numbered roads should exist based on alignment. It's important to the addressing/navigation in the city. 32nd Avenue NW doesn't connect with 32nd Avenue NE. That's fine to me - there's a methodology behind it that still exists today.

Named roads, which I think is more what you are referring to anyway, should be continuous. Sarcee, Barlow, etc.

I understand that at one point they either did connect (as was the case for Barlow) or there was once a plan for them to connect (Sarcee was supposed to continue over the river and connect). But if that's never going to happen, why have two completely separate roads with the same name?

I can only imagine what someone from out of town must think. "I need to go to Westhills. My friend says that's in the SW off of Sarcee. So I'll just turn south on Sarcee from Country Hills Blvd... wait a minute... Silver Springs?"

I know that's what maps and GPS units are for, but it is a bit odd. Do any other cities have this "issue"?

In Vancouver, the road names carry on with the alignment of the road even if the road ends then starts up again. So you have to be pretty aware of the numbered blocks and the building number you're looking for. A map is a must to find any address in the city if you haven't been there and if the name doesn't sound familiar. A lot of the similar sounding street names were changed a long time ago but there's still some confusing bits, especially if you take all of Metro Vancouver into consideration.
For example, Marine Drive: there's SW Marine Drive, SE Marine Drive and Marine Drive in both North Van and West Van.
There's also a Cambie and Granville Streets in both Van and Richmond.
Once you get the hang of the streets, street names and layout quirks, it's not that bad, but spending most of my life in Calgary with the numbered streets, Van sure took some getting used to for me...

[freeweed]

Yeah, and at least Calgary, being a Unicity, doesn't have 16 adjacent cities all with the same street names.

That is SO freaking annoying for an outsider. No, I didn't particularly notice that this arbitrary street divides 2 contiguous cities.

Occasionally even Unicities screw this up (pretty sure Winnipeg missed a couple) but for the most part it's a non-issue. Find a street and you know you're at least on the right track - not on the complete opposite end of town.

[h0twired]

Originally Posted by Skeletor

Would that be Main? I remember the road changing names a number of times as you drive south from Portage and Main toward St. Vital.

Its actually the street known as...

Salter Street -> Isabel Street -> Balmoral Street -> Colony Street -> Memorial Boulevard -> Osborne Street -> Dunkirk Drive -> Dakota Street

[dmuzika]

Originally Posted by Stang

I know that this came up a while back on here (well before the split into SSP Local).

My stance is: numbered roads should exist based on alignment. It's important to the addressing/navigation in the city. 32nd Avenue NW doesn't connect with 32nd Avenue NE. That's fine to me - there's a methodology behind it that still exists today.

Named roads, which I think is more what you are referring to anyway, should be continuous. Sarcee, Barlow, etc.

I understand that at one point they either did connect (as was the case for Barlow) or there was once a plan for them to connect (Sarcee was supposed to continue over the river and connect). But if that's never going to happen, why have two completely separate roads with the same name?

I can only imagine what someone from out of town must think. "I need to go to Westhills. My friend says that's in the SW off of Sarcee. So I'll just turn south on Sarcee from Country Hills Blvd... wait a minute... Silver Springs?"

I know that's what maps and GPS units are for, but it is a bit odd. Do any other cities have this "issue"?

If the city planners already renamed Sarcee Trail south of Crowchild to to Sliver Springs Gate, maybe the section north of Crowchild should be renamed as Spy Hill Trail.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by dmuzika

If the city planners already renamed Sarcee Trail south of Crowchild to to Sliver Springs Gate, maybe the section north of Crowchild should be renamed as Spy Hill Trail.

They certainly should have thought about this before handing out street addresses on Sarcee. A couple of years ago, it would have been a seamless change. But Beacon Hill is all addressed based on Sarcee (at least the Home Depot is).

Stupid, stupid lack of planning.

Ah well, most people today are completely lost without in-dash GPS anyway, even in a city they've lived in for 20 years, so I guess it's a non-issue.

[frinkprof]

Nevermind.

[dmuzika]

Originally Posted by h0twired

Its actually the street known as...

Salter Street -> Isabel Street -> Balmoral Street -> Colony Street -> Memorial Boulevard -> Osborne Street -> Dunkirk Drive -> Dakota Street

Brings to mind the major N-S route in Edmonton known as Manning Drive -> Fort Road -> Wayne Gretzky Drive -> 75 Street -> 66 Street. The 75 St -> 66 St makes some sense because the grid slightly shifts south of Whitemud Drive, other wise it needs one name....how about Manning Drive in honor Earnest C Manning, past premier of Alberta?

Originally Posted by freeweed

They certainly should have thought about this before handing out street addresses on Sarcee. A couple of years ago, it would have been a seamless change. But Beacon Hill is all addressed based on Sarcee (at least the Home Depot is).

Stupid, stupid lack of planning.

The addresses haven't stopped cities from changing street names in the past:

• Calgary Trail Northbound was renamed Gateway Blvd in Edmonton, with all the businesses that would be like renaming Macleod Trail
• Capilano Drive was renamed Wayne Gretzky Drive (as an Oilers fan, I still think that's cheesy)
• Marquis of Lorne Trail (Hwy 22X) west of Macleod Trail was renamed Spruce Meadows Trail
• Evergreen Blvd & 146 Ave SW (residential street with established houses) was renamed Fish Creek Blvd

Originally Posted by frinkprof

Another thing is when the Ring Road is completed, and roads lke CHB, Deerfoot Trail, 16th Avenue, etc. intersect Stoney Trail twice. That could be confusing if you don't give enough detail when telling someone to exit at Stoney Trail, and they get on it at the wrong point, and maybe going the wrong way.

With the quadrents it shouldn't be any worse than the numbered streets. At least Deerfoot Tr & Stoney Tr (no quadrent) only gives you 2 options. Tell someone to meet at 10 Ave & 10 St (no quadrent) and there are 4 options.

[lineman]

I tend to give out of-towners exit numbers. I would anticipate Stoney Tr having them too.

[Knoots]

Anyone know if the City has plans, or will ever have plans to update the Crowchild Tr/Bow Tr interchange so that you can actually get onto west-bound Bow from north-bound Crowchild? Calgary is hilarious for the number of "you can't get there from here" instances. I can think of a couple examples right off the bat - 14th street/memorial, deerfoot/beddington.... Anyway, I don't really know the history of the Crow/Bow interchange, sounds like some of you might know.

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by Knoots

Anyone know if the City has plans, or will ever have plans to update the Crowchild Tr/Bow Tr interchange so that you can actually get onto west-bound Bow from north-bound Crowchild? Calgary is hilarious for the number of "you can't get there from here" instances. I can think of a couple examples right off the bat - 14th street/memorial, deerfoot/beddington.... Anyway, I don't really know the history of the Crow/Bow interchange, sounds like some of you might know.

You can add Stoney/Shaganappi to the list once it opens.

However, I don't think Calgary has any more of these then any other city. If I had to guess, I'd say Calgary actually has less.

Crowchild/Bow needs more then just that added ramp. Maybe building it so it has more than one continuous lane that goes through both Bow and Memorial?

Memorial/14th isn't so bad, since you can do it via that short stretch of Kensington Road.

Deerfoot/Beddington is understandable, It would cost quite a bit of money to get another ramp over the railway and the creek for low traffic volumes. Also, the Airport Trail to 96th Ave connection being built this summer will help that situation out, since people will be able to get between beddington and Deerfoot via Harvest Hills Blvd and 96th Ave.

[mersar]

Crowchild/Bow likely won't ever have that ramp added, and I doubt they'll ever fix the awkward access from WB bow to NB Crowchild either. The WLRT work will modify a few things but for the most part it will be the same, with the addition of the LRT running up the middle.

[jeffwhit]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Winnipeg has 2 great examples of both problems being discussed here:

1. A continuous street with at least 7 different names.

2. A single named street with at least 7 disconnected sections.

Plus many, many similar issues.

Calgary is positively easy in comparison. It's what happens as cities grow and change.

Well, I live in an area that is an exception, the 700 block of a Sunnyside Street. I am less than a block off Memorial, but every time I need a taxi to the airport they are driving around Crescent Heights looking for my place. Look at a Map of Sunnyside and watch how 2nd ave turns into 7th ave...

[Stang]

Originally Posted by jeffwhit

Well, I live in an area that is an exception, the 700 block of a Sunnyside Street. I am less than a block off Memorial, but every time I need a taxi to the airport they are driving around Crescent Heights looking for my place. Look at a Map of Sunnyside and watch how 2nd ave turns into 7th ave...

Kind of like that little segment of 14th Avenue that sits NORTH of 9th Avenue in Inglewood? Interesting little anomalies all over the place I guess!

On a side note, for those interested in the old school street names, Google Maps shows 9th Ave as "Atlantic Avenue" (in addition to 9th Avenue) through Inglewood.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

This always gets me, and I unrelentingly rag on friends and family who whip out and/or turn on their GPS receiver when going somewhere they've been a hundred times and could drive to in their sleep. Maybe it comes from driving and navigating spiderweb service and access roads for long enough, but I always trust my brain first, and things like GPS-Nav devices are a last resort. Navigation is something that should always be actively thought-out, not passively acted upon as dictated by the chick with the accent on a device.

GPS and mapping technologies are a product of my field of education too, so I should be encouraging people to use them rather than not.

Anyway, to get this back to road talk, I guess the whole broken up road thing doesn't bother me that much in the big scheme of things. It's certainly a bit of a source of people getting lost/confusion, and maybe renaming sections is in order, but as pointed out, other cities have similar issues.

Another thing is when the Ring Road is completed, and roads lke CHB, Deerfoot Trail, 16th Avenue, etc. intersect Stoney Trail twice. That could be confusing if you don't give enough detail when telling someone to exit at Stoney Trail, and they get on it at the wrong point, and maybe going the wrong way.

I'm pretty sure there will be very few actual instances of a road passing through Stoney Trail twice. Deerfoot will only do so once, it will pass through the ring road twice but I've never heard any thing about Marquis of Lorne Trail being renamed Stoney. I imagine the ring road will actually have a number of names, Stoney, Glenmore, Sarcee, Spruce Meadows, Marquis of Lorne, and possibly another on the East side.

[mersar]

So far its not sounding like they will use another name on the east side, as far as 22X they've been referring to it as Stoney. Any southward legs off the main ring though would likely get a new name.