[Skeletor]

Snarly attitude? I clarified it, but after the fact your clarifying shit that I cleared up. The only person's "vision" you should be worrying about is your own as you can't even follow the conversation. I guess saying "look at a map" is offensive hey? point it out where I was snarly. Leave your smart aleck comments for some other place

And I don't see your lazy ass looking for this info, its listed in the city budget as crowchild 24th ave to 19th ave sw, and you say you wish they put this info on the city's website. so get off my damn back and actually search for the info. There's something wrong with your head to call me snarly after I freely put out obscure info for people that don't know about it

Perhaps you didn't mean 'look at a map' in a smart ass manner, and perhaps I was jesting when I called you snarly and forgot to put one of these --> :P after my sentence. It's pretty hard to tell on the internet. I've been reading this board since 2004, and I would not have presumed that there was attitude behind your words I had not seen you do it many times before. Not saying you do it all the time, but more than enough to give the impression that yes, you are in fact snarly from time to time. The fact that you felt it necessary to rip my head off with two paragraphs says enough. But this isn't the place to discuss this, so if you'd like to PM me, feel free.

[Ice Water]

We need more pics :cool:

[lubicon]

We need more pics :cool:

Hard to post more pics, when there has not been any real measurable progress.:hell:

[Ice Water]

Hard to post more pics, when there has not been any real measurable progress.:hell:

Whats the hold up? Is it because of the weather?

[mersar]

Weather and the fact that most of the next work that they've recently awarded contracts for doesn't start until spring. The only Stoney Trail projects that have been doing anything are the Scenic Acres/Tuscany interchange and the one city pedestrian bridge over Stoney between Royal Oak and Arbour Lake. Contracts for the next phase of Crowchild don't start until March I believe, and the final work between Sarcee and Deerfoot is shut down for the winter and will start back up in April if I recall.

There has been some work on the NE leg with the 16th Avenue interchange, that one can be hard to get shots of though since theres not really anywhere to stop and take some shots.

[You Need A Thneed]

We need more pics :cool:

There are some new airphotos up on the Alberta Transportation website. Photos that were taken in September and October.

[mersar]

Stoney @ Scenic Acres (Jan 10/2009)
http://compscience.info/public/images/2009/stoneyscenicacres-jan10-1.jpg

[korzym]

both fly-over ramps that go over 16th ave NE are now erected, though they still require deck work of course. The support columns for the main stoney trail bridges are largely complete requiring some work still. Through all this time, 84th street has remained open, it was supposed to be closed in August I believe

[mersar]

They put off closing 84th until Spring during the fall as it wasn't really needed yet.

[Wrecker]

Is Beddington to Deerfoot open? On Transportations website, says fall 2008.

[You Need A Thneed]

Is Beddington to Deerfoot open? On Transportations website, says fall 2008.

Nope. Just Counntry Hills Blvd to Sarcee.

[mersar]

Yep. Everything between Sarcee and Deerfoot is completely shut down for the winter with exception being the little construction yard on Shag which did look to have some activity happening though probably just stuff being dropped off, mostly it looks like they have all the rebar for the big overhead signs stock piled there.

I did notice that someone also decided it may be a good idea to put some 'danger - water hazard' signs around the small lake that formed at Crowchild and Stoney following the rain storm last summer, I've seen a few people cutting through the area there and I imagine that the ice over that probably isn't the safest

[freeweed]

I did notice that someone also decided it may be a good idea to put some 'danger - water hazard' signs around the small lake that formed at Crowchild and Stoney following the rain storm last summer, I've seen a few people cutting through the area there and I imagine that the ice over that probably isn't the safest

You mean cutting through in VEHICLES??

Darwinism at its finest.

[mersar]

No, fortunately not in vehicles (that only happened on the south side until they decided to barricade it off a bit better).

[freeweed]

No, fortunately not in vehicles (that only happened on the south side until they decided to barricade it off a bit better).

Hmm, can't say that the area strikes me as pedestrian friendly to begin with, but to each their own.

I figured maybe vehicles because just about daily I see a truck (it's ALWAYS the idiots in trucks) crossing the median, driving through part of the construction area, doing a U-turn over some dirt somewhere...

Truck drivers for some reason are simply incapable of driving that whopping extra km to the next exit in this city.

[Stang]

I figured maybe vehicles because just about daily I see a truck (it's ALWAYS the idiots in trucks) crossing the median, driving through part of the construction area, doing a U-turn over some dirt somewhere...

Come on, there are NO idiots in trucks in this city..... ;)

That pond is actually pretty deep, I was wondering how easily it would be drained when the time came to actually dig away the "dam" that crowchild is currently being re-routed to. Can't see it drying up, especially when monsoon June comes around.

[freeweed]

Come on, there are NO idiots in trucks in this city..... ;)

That pond is actually pretty deep, I was wondering how easily it would be drained when the time came to actually dig away the "dam" that crowchild is currently being re-routed to. Can't see it drying up, especially when monsoon June comes around.

Yeah, considering it lasted all summer and fall with little replenishment... To be honest I'm surprised it hasn't generated a safety issue, ie: been on the news because some kid drowned in it. It's certainly much deeper than I've ever seen on an unfenced construction site.

[mersar]

Yeah, considering it lasted all summer and fall with little replenishment... To be honest I'm surprised it hasn't generated a safety issue, ie: been on the news because some kid drowned in it. It's certainly much deeper than I've ever seen on an unfenced construction site.

Yeah, I was personally expecting that they would have drained it by the fall. I think the fun part of draining will be the lack of storm water sewer in the area (since most of it runs north-south and I don't believe any large enough pipe runs too close to Stoney either), which is going to make it a long process of possibly needing to pump and truck the water out.

[freeweed]

Yeah, I was personally expecting that they would have drained it by the fall. I think the fun part of draining will be the lack of storm water sewer in the area (since most of it runs north-south and I don't believe any large enough pipe runs too close to Stoney either), which is going to make it a long process of possibly needing to pump and truck the water out.

I've wondered too.. ironically enough there's a ton of stormwater lines just next door in the Silver Springs area (and a treatment facility of some sort).

Where does water go that drains off Stoney right now? Absorbed into the ground? I figured they'd just pump it to the other side of Crowchild and it would go wherever it wanted.

[You Need A Thneed]

I figured they'd just pump it to the other side of Crowchild and it would go wherever it wanted.

I imagine that this is what they will do. After all, that's where the water would have gone had it not been blocked.

[Oliver Klozov]

Come on, there are NO idiots in trucks in this city......

Q: What do you say to a guy with an IQ of 40?

A: How's your truck running?

[mersar]

Just noticed they posted an update on the Scenic Acres / Tuscany status page (http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/stscenicgp.htm) the other day:


Completed Activities

Scenic Acres Link has been lowered and constructed to its new alignment. Stoney Trail temporary detour has been completed. Traffic will continue to use the Stoney Trail detour into 2009. The current traffic configuration is stage 2 of 2 stages. More information is provided in the Maps section.

The bridge piles and abutments have been completed. Significant portions of the earthworks for the Tuscany Blvd. connector have been completed as well as portions of the underground stormwater system.

Project Status for Spring 2009

Graham will be erecting the bridge girders this winter and preparing to cast the bridge decks in April/May.

Earthworks and paving operatings are anticipated to begin with the new southbound Stoney Trail roadway, followed by the completion of the Tuscany Blvd. connector. The remaining retaining wall and underground stormwater system will commence.

Next Steps

-Complete Stoney Trail bridge barriers and approaches
-Detour existing Tuscany Blvd to enable construction of the new Tuscany Blvd. connector
-Complete retaining wall and paving under the Stoney Trail bridges
-Complete street light illumination, signage and pavement markings
-Open new Stoney Trail to traffic and remove existing Stoney Trail/Tuscany Blvd. intersection including signals
-Complete detour obliterations, stormwater ponds, landscaping, signage and miscellaneous works

[craner]

What is the latest status of getting rid of the lights at Nose Hill Drive?

[mersar]

What is the latest status of getting rid of the lights at Nose Hill Drive?

Nothing official yet, unofficially it had been said that we'd probably see an announcement by the end of this year (I was told they'd likely announce it near when the scenic acres interchange opens). The roadwork for the Scenic acres project will go pretty much to about where you'd imagine the project limits for the Nosehill interchange to go (you can see the earthwork they've already done to split the lanes apart so there is a full median down the middle).

[Oliver Klozov]

It will be interesting to see if they also announce at the same time a project to widen (twin) the CPR and Bow River Bridges. Once Nose Hill interchange is complete the Bow River bridge will become a choke point. They should do them in conjunction with Nose Hill. If they wait until later, that will be the slowest portion of Stoney Trail for years to come.

[mersar]

I don't think the Bow river bridge will become a choke point yet, if anything will become one it will be the 16th avenue interchange. Twinning the river bridge will be a fairly expensive project that I don't see even being on the 10-15 year horizon personally.

[lubicon]

What is the latest status of getting rid of the lights at Nose Hill Drive?

Given the current economic climate I would think this project will get pushed back. Unfortunately.

[freeweed]

I don't think the Bow river bridge will become a choke point yet, if anything will become one it will be the 16th avenue interchange. Twinning the river bridge will be a fairly expensive project that I don't see even being on the 10-15 year horizon personally.

Kinda makes you wonder what the point of a 6 lane road is, if they know full well part of it is stuck at 4 for the next couple of decades.

Unless traffic studies show most of the Ring Road traffic will be in the city only, and not going down to 16th - at least until the SW portion is built.

[Beltliner]

Kinda makes you wonder what the point of a 6 lane road is, if they know full well part of it is stuck at 4 for the next couple of decades.

Unless traffic studies show most of the Ring Road traffic will be in the city only, and not going down to 16th - at least until the SW portion is built.

Can't tell from the site diagram (http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/Content/docType490/production/sttrans-m2.pdf) whether they've fiddled with the lane markings on the Stoney Trail Bridge to allow them to scale up the existing bridge deck from four lanes to six. Even if they had, through, adding more through lanes from Transcanada to Crowchild is at a minimum going to involve bracketing the current bridge with additional parallel decks--which is tough to see happening before they open up the Transcanada-to-Glenmore leg.

[Oliver Klozov]

I don't think the Bow river bridge will become a choke point yet, if anything will become one it will be the 16th avenue interchange. Twinning the river bridge will be a fairly expensive project that I don't see even being on the 10-15 year horizon personally.

Kinda makes you wonder what the point of a 6 lane road is, if they know full well part of it is stuck at 4 for the next couple of decades.

Unless traffic studies show most of the Ring Road traffic will be in the city only, and not going down to 16th - at least until the SW portion is built.

I say it will for a couple of reasons.

1. Bridges, especially big ones, are notorious for this. Many people sub-consciously slow down when approaching bridges. If the person following needs to touch their brakes, a chain reaction ensues and traffic snarls. Ever tried the TCH in Vancouver? Port Mann bridge is a perfect example.

2. Once the NW and NE portions are open, there will be a lot of bypass traffic, including trucks. There is a lot of Hwy 1 - Hwy 2 traffic (trucks too) that currently bypasses via Hwy 567 / Hwy 22 through Cochrane. Stoney Trail over the Bow has never seen the kind of truck traffic it will soon. That southbound to westbound bypass traffic will of course be exiting Stoney and heading west on #1.

With no lights at Nose Hill the southbound traffic will be able to flow nicely but at the Bow River Bridge it will slow down. With lights at Nose Hill it wont be noticeable because the traffic wont be up to speed anyway.

[bpakish]

Completely changing the subject, does anyone know when the two new cTrain stations on 7th Ave are opening (6th Street and 7th Street). They both look ready to go, but have not yet opened. I read on the city web site that 7th street was supposed to open in Jan, 6th Street in February, but was just curious if anyone had any more up-to-date info.

[mersar]

Completely changing the subject, does anyone know when the two new cTrain stations on 7th Ave are opening (6th Street and 7th Street). They both look ready to go, but have not yet opened. I read on the city web site that 7th street was supposed to open in Jan, 6th Street in February, but was just curious if anyone had any more up-to-date info.

See the transit thread (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=118079&page=374), the rumor is next Tuesday

[lubicon]

Tuscany / Scenic Acres interchange update:

They delivered at least 3 bridge girders to the site on Saturday night (I got caught on Stoney Trail and almost missed my hockey game as they had the road blocked while they maneuvered the girders onto the construction site). This morning they had the Mamoet (sp?) crane set up and there were quite a few workers present. Looks like they will be starting to place those girders today.

[Mininari]

I say it will for a couple of reasons.

1. Bridges, especially big ones, are notorious for this. Many people sub-consciously slow down when approaching bridges. If the person following needs to touch their brakes, a chain reaction ensues and traffic snarls. Ever tried the TCH in Vancouver? Port Mann bridge is a perfect example.


Does the Bow River bridge have interchanges feeding traffic onto the bridge at both sides of the bridge?
Are these 6 lanes at capacity and being forced to merge down into 4? If not, then the bridge probably won't be a problem (hence not a priorty) for at least a few years.

For example, westbound Port Mann traffic is inundated with HEAVY volumes merging on from the 152nd onramp in north surrey.

The new 10-lane Port Mann replacement bridge will be addressing this through a collector/express system, but I digress.

[mersar]

Good to hear.

I made a run to Airdrie yesterday and came back down Deerfoot so I had a chance to look at the Stoney interchange. It's coming along pretty nicely, from what I could see it looked like pretty much all the bridges were to the point where they are working on the bridge decks.

Does the Bow River bridge have interchanges feeding traffic onto the bridge at both sides of the bridge?
Are these 6 lanes at capacity and being forced to merge down into 4? If not, then the bridge probably won't be a problem (hence not a priorty) for at least a few years.

For example, westbound Port Mann traffic is inundated with HEAVY volumes merging on from the 152nd onramp in north surrey.

The new 10-lane Port Mann replacement bridge will be addressing this through a collector/express system, but I digress.

There will be an interchange (currently just a set of lights) a quarter kilometer north of the bridge, and the TransCanada interchange is about 1km south of it. Currently its only 4 lanes on either side.

[You Need A Thneed]

Can't tell from the site diagram (http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/Content/docType490/production/sttrans-m2.pdf) whether they've fiddled with the lane markings on the Stoney Trail Bridge to allow them to scale up the existing bridge deck from four lanes to six. Even if they had, through, adding more through lanes from Transcanada to Crowchild is at a minimum going to involve bracketing the current bridge with additional parallel decks--which is tough to see happening before they open up the Transcanada-to-Glenmore leg.

The current bridge over the Bow River is two lanes in each direction with pretty much no shoulders at all. I'm pretty sure the plan is that it will become 3 lanes with a shoulder. You couldn't possibly squeeze another lane out of the current bridge, never mind two lanes to make it 3 lanes each direction.

[Oliver Klozov]

There will be an interchange (currently just a set of lights) a quarter kilometer north of the bridge, and the TransCanada interchange is about 1km south of it. Currently its only 4 lanes on either side.

I think you mean 2 lanes either side (4 total) but that's my point. With traffic from eastbound Nose Hill merging into the 2 lanes of free-flowing southbound Stoney Trail traffic, there will be problems, especially in the morning rush hour. With the lights at Nose Hill, there are breaks in the southbound Stoney traffic so the 2-lane bridge effect is not so noticeable.

There are adjacent embankments already built for a new (widened) bridge over CPR's Keith yard. I'm not sure that it is wide enough for a new 4 lanes southbound but new 4-lane bridges over both the rail yard and the river will be required sooner rather than later and long before the SW leg is constructed.

[Nudrock]

I think you mean 2 lanes either side (4 total) but that's my point. ....

"With 4 lanes either side", I believe they mean 4 lanes South of the bridge and 4 lanes North of the bridge - not 4 lanes driving southbound and 4 lanes northbound.

[Oliver Klozov]

"With 4 lanes either side", I believe they mean 4 lanes South of the bridge and 4 lanes North of the bridge - not 4 lanes driving southbound and 4 lanes northbound.

Yup Gotcha. My bad :redface:

[lubicon]

Girders for the east bridge of the Tuscany/Scenic Acres interchange look to be in place, and several have been placed on the west bridge as of this morning.

Based on that fact, these bridges look like they can only carry 2 lanes of traffic each but it is a little hard to tell from driving past them. If that is the case then you can infer that Stoney is planned to only have 4 lanes (2 x NB, 2 x SB) for the foreseeable future and thus I wouldn't think a new bridge over the Bow is coming any time soon. Maybe I'm wrong becasue they almost has to be 3 lanes NB on Stoney as the road climbs the hill, otherwise there will be huge traffic problems due to slow moving trucks.

On the other hand, there was a portable drill rig working just off Stoney Trail at the north end of the bridge. It was drilling just west of Stoney on the existing embankments that are obviously in place for a future bridge. No idea of why they would be doing soil testing there at this time, maybe there is something to the new bridge after all.

Soooo... a little evidence both for and against a new bridge over the Bow.

[mersar]

The site plan (http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/Content/docType490/Production/stscenic-m2.pdf) shows that NB stoney is 3 lanes and SB stoney 2 lanes (plus an offramp) going over Scenic Acres Link, so hopefully that is what is built.

[lubicon]

That only makes sense as there really needs to be a climbing lane for slow moving vehicles. I assume that is what will be built. It is difficult to get a perspective of how wide the bridges are when you drive past them. I guess part of my point was that it would appear that a new bridge over the Bow is not in the short term plans otherwise they would have / could have made accomodations for more lanes on Stoney at the Tuscany interchange. At any rate they are making decent progress on this structure.

[Oliver Klozov]

The site plan (http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/Content/docType490/Production/stscenic-m2.pdf) shows that NB stoney is 3 lanes and SB stoney 2 lanes (plus an offramp) going over Scenic Acres Link, so hopefully that is what is built.

Indeed. That off-ramp lane is already diverging as it crosses the bridge so it appears that the west (southbound) bridge will be even wider than 3 lanes.

It also is worth noting that in the ultimate configuration (orange lines) the southbound Stoney to Tuscany/Scenic ramp will have its own bridge over Scenic Acres Link.

[mersar]

Global mentioned on the news tonight that the province and city will be announcing funding for the SE part of the ring road next week :)

[freeweed]

Global mentioned on the news tonight that the province and city will be announcing funding for the SE part of the ring road next week :)

And another delay in the SW portion, next discussion to take place in 2015.

[korzym]

Awesome news guys! thanks for sharing. I drove past the 16th ne interchange, they've begun putting up the components of the deck for the main stoney trail road going over 16th. Got to love private companies...they're showing they can get things done better than gov like no other

Calgary drivers facing traffic turmoil in the city's southeast will soon see some relief, says a local alderman.

With the province expected to announce plans for the southeast leg of Calgary's ring road Monday, Ald. Ric McIver said the news couldn't be better for commuters at his end of town who have long had do deal with traffic bottlenecks on busy Deerfoot Tr.

"This is so huge -- the Deerfoot when it pinches off to two lanes at Glenmore Tr. has got to be the worst traffic situation in the city," he said.

The northeast portion of the ring road is expected to be complete by fall, while the majority of the northwest portion has been built, which will provide a continuous route along Calgary's edge from 16 Ave. N.W. to 17 Ave. S.E.

Plans for the southeast leg will connect to the northeast portion and run south all the way to Hwy. 22X.


With the announcement, three-quarters of the long awaited ring road will be underway while negotiations between the province and the Tsuu T'ina First Nation still continue over the future southwest leg of the road.

Talks over that portion have been ongoing for years but Chief Sanford Big Plume said last November he believes a deal is close to being signed and ratified.

McIver said the continued progress on the pricey project shows the province has the city's best interest at heart and doesn't need to be hounded into moving forward on important infrastructure.

"It goes to show that it's all well and good to push the province, but sometimes it's in our best interest to work co-operatively," he said.

"The fact is, Premier (Ed) Stelmach has promised to complete the ring road by 2015 and I have every reason to believe that will happen."
http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Alberta/2009/02/28/8567021-sun.html

[Wooster]

Just a question - why are you guys so excited about the ring road? Won't it contribute to exacerbating sprawl in Calgary and decentralize the city? Given the limited of money going around these days, wouldn't you rather have these hundreds of millions or billions of dollars going to transit - which would have probably a greater impact on reducing congestion? Are by-passing routes in the city prominent enough to justify such massive infrastrucure?

I understand the necessary-evil of highways, but is this project really that needed or good for the city?

[freeweed]

Because Calgary isn't getting rid of cars anytime soon. Because there are no good east-west routes in the city (especially the northern half). Because trucks and other highway-only traffic continue to clog our roads.

Mostly because most of us aren't raving "transit only for everything!!!" lunatics. ;)

You want to talk about encouraging real sprawl, go check out the Calgary commuter rail thread.

[Wooster]

Because Calgary isn't getting rid of cars anytime soon. Because there are no good east-west routes in the city (especially the northern half). Because trucks and other highway-only traffic continue to clog our roads.

Mostly because most of us aren't raving "transit only for everything!!!" lunatics. ;)

You want to talk about encouraging real sprawl, go check out the Calgary commuter rail thread.

I always took John Laurie or Country Hills to cross town in the north. They are always pretty quick.

Commuter rail yes, you're right will facilitate growth in our satellite suburbs - but it's also a case of them not going away either, so it's good to give people an option of something other than a car. Hopefully it may also spur some more better growth patterns in those communities as well (which I think should be a condition of getting stuff like regional rail - minimum densities and so forth). Hopefully the new regional planning regime will put in place those kinds of targets.

[craner]

Global mentioned on the news tonight that the province and city will be announcing funding for the SE part of the ring road next week :)

:banana:
This is a relief, I was worried this might get shelved after the provincial budget update this week and a call for capital spending cuts in light of the impending deficit.

Sorry Wooster - I still get excited about big new freeways (as long as they are not through or around downtown). I agree with Freeweed on the lack of good E-W routes in the north. And why in hell do we have that sorry excuse for an interchange at Glenmore and Deerfoot - the two busiest roads in Calgary. Deerfoot also reduces down to two lanes just north of the Ivor Strong bridge - figure that out. :hell: :shrug:
If we can complete the ring road and Crowchild as free flow from 24th Ave NW accross the river I'll be satisfied (for the time being).;)

[MalcolmTucker]

^ Once those two things are done, I would be happy for council to make an announcement:

We are never planning to build another interchange or mile of freeway. Ever.

[Skeletor]

And another delay in the SW portion, next discussion to take place in 2015.

OMFG! Are you serious or is that sarcasm? It should be BUILT by then... I wish they would get their heads out of their a$$es and just do something already. What is 6 more years of sitting around before it is even discussed going to accomplish?

[Skeletor]

^ Once those two things are done, I would be happy for council to make an announcement:

We are never planning to build another interchange or mile of freeway. Ever.


Thankfully your thoughts on that particular issue are among the minority in this city. Personalized transport is not going anywhere anytime soon. The form of fuel may change, but I think we'll ALL be old and grey before we see the core ideas that define the automobile change all that drastically. Please don't take that as an affront against public transit. It just can't compete with the car in terms of time and convenience aside from filing us into and out of the core every week day. And no, hindering the road network to make transit seem more palatable in comparison is not the way to go.

I'm on my way out the door (to go for a drive in my car with my friend - just for fun), so I don't have time to refine my thoughts all that well. Hopefully I'll be back later to fend off the retorts. :cheers:

[freeweed]

I always took John Laurie or Country Hills to cross town in the north. They are always pretty quick.

JL isn't bad although then you get the joy of being crammed up with the lights on McKnight - good on a quiet day, annoying on a busy one.

Country Hills is a parking lot. Not sure how long it's been since you've driven it (you say "took"...) but that road is just abysmal these days.

[freeweed]

OMFG! Are you serious or is that sarcasm? It should be BUILT by then... I wish they would get their heads out of their a$$es and just do something already. What is 6 more years of sitting around before it is even discussed going to accomplish?

Well, I don't actually know anything, so sarcasm. But every year we hear "discussions are happening and a decision will be made soon" and that's been going on for years and years now. So 2015 would not surprise me in the least.

[mersar]

Heard on the radio that supposedly the SE part of the ring road will be done as a P3, they've put out requests for proposals and hope to be able to start construction by next spring for a 2013 completion. This part will be from 17th Ave SE up to and including the Macleod Trail and 22X interchange.

[You Need A Thneed]

Heard on the radio that supposedly the SE part of the ring road will be done as a P3, they've put out requests for proposals and hope to be able to start construction by next spring for a 2013 completion. This part will be from 17th Ave SE up to and including the Macleod Trail and 22X interchange.

Alberta Government News Release (http://alberta.ca/acn/200903/25391C7CB4326-0E98-98FB-E3EB7E8A6B54CA93.html)

Also, regarding the SW portion:

Draft agreement reached between province and Tsuu T'ina (http://www.calgaryherald.com/Province+Tsuu+reach+agreement+land+Calgary+ring+road/1345063/story.html)

[mersar]

Thanks for digging up the links.

Seems the radio had it wrong, it doesn't include the Macleod interchange in this part. This part will actually be bigger than the NE though, 25km and 29 bridges versus 23km and 23 bridges. More interchanges as well at 9. Got to love how they also tacked maintenance of part of Deerfoot onto it though.

[You Need A Thneed]

Thanks for digging up the links.

Seems the radio had it wrong, it doesn't include the Macleod interchange in this part. This part will actually be bigger than the NE though, 25km and 29 bridges versus 23km and 23 bridges. More interchanges as well at 9. Got to love how they also tacked maintenance of part of Deerfoot onto it though.

More kms, but several of those kms are just twinning, instead of a whole new road.

[lubicon]

Great news about the SE portion of Stoney. I always felt this was the next logical step seeing as the SW is such a cluster with the Tsu Tina 'negotiations'. The SE is jsut so much easier to build - flat land, ralatively straight alignment, and no land aquirement issues to worry about. This will be a huge benefit to those who live and work in the SE, and to commercial traffic that comes in and out of the SE. With the recent start of NW Anthony Henday in Edmonton you knew this announcement would not be too far off as construction of the 2 ring roads in Edmonton and Calgary have followwed very similar patterns and timelines.

Of particular interest to me is how a P3 is going to work in today's economic environment. I love the idea, adn they have worked well in the past (for the ring roads) but i wonder how easy it will be for the consortiums to secure financing if they are awarded this project. Would the Province be able to use it's own money (eg Heritage Fund) to loan the money to the consortiums? Work the deal like any other financial deal, to be paid back with interest, and it might not be a bad investment for the Province.


Changing topics, we have been discussing the opening of the Stoney/Crowchid interchange over on the Calgary Transit thread (probably wrongly). Just thought I would add in that the new bridge structures have been tagged pretty significantly with grafitti which I jsut noticed over the weekend. The interchange won't even open for at least another year and it's already a grafitti target. Must be those gangsta's living in Tuscany.

[Beltliner]

I owe you a pint if the subject of this discussion (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQxgv4QtKM8) [warning: NSFW; 4'54" mark] isn't who tagged those bridges:

I am standin’ there, lookin’ at him; now he starts to talk to me, and this is how he talks to me:

“Yo man, wass up? Wass up, man?”

—and he’s white! He’s wavin’ gang signs at me—“Yo, wass up, man?”—and he’s frackin’ white! He’s talkin’ to me like he’s a card-carryin’ member of the Wu-Tang Clan…

“You know what? You’re not in the Wu-Tang Clan, okay? You’re not even in A Tribe Called Quest, you fundament! You’re in a 7-Eleven, you’re eighteen years old, you don’t know horse puckey about horse puckey, and PULL UP YOUR PANTS!”

Kstati the news on Stoney Trail SE and SW--good news for pulling industrial and long-haul traffic off Deerfoot Trail and 16 Avenue, but for anyone at Duh Ledge standing up for LRT capital funding, probably not so much. Let's just hope that whoever they end up hiring has the wits to make Stoney x 17 Ave SE LRT-ready, and to leave enough room to expand Stoney Trail into a collector-express alignment that would spike the mooted outer ring road once and for all.

[mersar]

Let's just hope that whoever they end up hiring has the wits to make Stoney x 17 Ave SE LRT-ready

I suspect that we'll likely see nothing explicitly about the LRT there, and will likely end up with any potential alignment there in the distant future being done so it jogs south of the interchange (as there is that proposed mall that will be built on the north side of 17th between Stoney and 84th), the in the same style as the 17th Ave and Stoney SW is currently planned to have the LRT there cross Stoney north of that interchange.

[Beltliner]

CFCN reports (at the 6'38" mark) (javascript:changeVideo('http://esi.ctv.ca/datafeed/urlgen2.aspx?vid=145269','cfcn0302_cast','00:00:00.00','00:14:52.00','145269','1')) that the Tsuu T'ina are holding a presser this afternoon for their take on the status of the Stoney Trail SW leg.

UPPITY DATE: Confirmed on Mothercorp (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2009/03/02/cgy-se-ring-road-p3.html) that the Tsuu T'ina want to talk about the situation this afternoon.

UPPITY DATE: Sandford Big Plume weighs in on SW Stoney Trail. According to The Fishwrap (http://www.calgaryherald.com/Province+closer+ring+road+deal/1345063/story.html):

In a statement released Monday, Tsuu T'ina Chief Sandford Big Plume said while a deal is indeed close, there is still some work remaining.

"I have further been advised (by the negotiating team) that while there are outstanding legal issues, those are relatively minor in the context of what has been a very complex and multi-jurisdictional negotiation," he said in the statement.

[lubicon]

CFCN reports (at the 6'38" mark) (javascript:changeVideo('http://esi.ctv.ca/datafeed/urlgen2.aspx?vid=145269','cfcn0302_cast','00:00:00.00','00:14:52.00','145269','1')) that the Tsuu T'ina are holding a presser this afternoon for their take on the status of the Stoney Trail SW leg.

This could be interesting. I'll go out on a limb and predict the Tsuu T'ina people will be unhappy that the SE portion is going ahead first, and that they are more than willing to work with the province to get the SW portion built. I say too bad for them, they had their chance and now they'll just to wait (some more). If historical trends continue, next up will be the NE portion of AHD in Edmonton, and then finally the SW Stoney (as far as provincial funding goes). I'd say we're looking at 3-4 more years at the earliest before we see any firm dates for the SW portion, and another 3-4 years for opening.

Freeweed's prediction of 2015 might not be too far off the mark, unfortunately.

[Stang]

This could be interesting. I'll go out on a limb and predict the Tsuu T'ina people will be unhappy that the SE portion is going ahead first, and that they are more than willing to work with the province to get the SW portion built. I say too bad for them, they had their chance and now they'll just to wait (some more). If historical trends continue, next up will be the NE portion of AHD in Edmonton, and then finally the SW Stoney (as far as provincial funding goes). I'd say we're looking at 3-4 more years at the earliest before we see any firm dates for the SW portion, and another 3-4 years for opening.

Freeweed's prediction of 2015 might not be too far off the mark, unfortunately.

Or... this could be a strategy by the province to speed up negotiations with the Tsuu T'ina side and, at the very least, acquire the land for the SW portion. Probably not though.

I can imagine that negotiations with the Tsuu T'ina will be more difficult if the SW portion is the last piece of the puzzle. I'd say that would give them some leverage in their negotiations and it could end up costing the province more.

Of course, there could be benefits to the Tsuu T'ina nation (like developing around the new road, etc.) that might want them to get the deal done sooner rather than later. But I get the impression that they are content to wait as long as they can to get top dollar.

Obviously this is pure speculation. And once the press conference happens I'll probably look foolish! :uhh:

[Skeletor]

Well, I don't actually know anything, so sarcasm. But every year we hear "discussions are happening and a decision will be made soon" and that's been going on for years and years now. So 2015 would not surprise me in the least.

Ah, ok. I was worried that they had actually said that, and I was like: :eek:. I could see 2015 completion, or even construction start in 2015, but to not return to negotiations until 2015? Absurd!! :haha: Seems that today's announcements cleared everything up! Now it's just more wait and see...

[03SVTcobra]

Thanks for digging up the links.

Seems the radio had it wrong, it doesn't include the Macleod interchange in this part. This part will actually be bigger than the NE though, 25km and 29 bridges versus 23km and 23 bridges. More interchanges as well at 9. Got to love how they also tacked maintenance of part of Deerfoot onto it though.

29 bridges still to come? Or have some been completed?

[mersar]

29 bridges still to come? Or have some been completed?

To come. Of course any given interchange may have upwards of a half dozen or so bridges in it, so accounting for the 9 interchanges and 2 railway flyovers (which will be 2 bridges each) the number actually isn't that high. I don't think that number counts the existing bridge structures (Deerfoot @ 22X, 22X over Bow River), I'll have to dig out the maps when I get home and do a rough count (plus it may give an idea as to what level of completeness they are wanting to build initially)

[You Need A Thneed]

To come. Of course any given interchange may have upwards of a half dozen or so bridges in it, so accounting for the 9 interchanges and 2 railway flyovers (which will be 2 bridges each) the number actually isn't that high. I don't think that number counts the existing bridge structures (Deerfoot @ 22X, 22X over Bow River), I'll have to dig out the maps when I get home and do a rough count (plus it may give an idea as to what level of completeness they are wanting to build initially)

What I can count from the Alberta Transportation website:

17th Ave
Peigan Trail
Over Railway tracks - 2 bridges
Glenmore Trail - 7 bridges
Over Irrigation Canal - 2 bridges
114th Ave
Over Railway tracks - 2 bridges
22x - 3 bridges
52nd Street
Deerfoot Trail - 7 new added to the 2 existing
mcKenzie Lake
Chaparral

That adds up to 29, so I'm assuming that's what it'll be.

Cranston will have even poorer access once everything is done, if nothing changes from the plans on the webpage. The current drawings make it impossible to get into Cranston directly if you are coming from the east on the 22x. Also, you can't get to Deerfoot southbound or 22x Eastbound from the McKenzie Lake/Cranston interchange.

Also, there are 2 separate ramps from Deerfoot Northbound to 22x Eastbound - though I suppose they are both required. The second little one allows people accessing Deerfoot northbound from 196th Ave to turn onto 22x eastbound, as the main exit comes off before the traffic from that interchange joins the flow.

[freeweed]

Not sure if I'm reading into this correctly (like always the media gives conflicting reports), but it appears as though the SW "agreement" is anything but - this is merely a proposal which will be forwarded to the band for voting THIS SUMMER. And it's already been 4 years since this latest round of talks started. Note that the band could vote "no" and we'd be back to square one.

Again, we're years away from start of construction. And with 2013 being used as timing for the SE portion... it'll be a minor miracle if they make 2015 for the SW.

[korzym]

Friends of the civilized world, my gift to you for the day. 16th ave NE and stoney trail:

All these pictures are looking eastbound
http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a53/korzym/Image003.jpg

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a53/korzym/Image004.jpg

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a53/korzym/Image005.jpg

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a53/korzym/Image006.jpg

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a53/korzym/Image007.jpg

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a53/korzym/Image008.jpg

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a53/korzym/Image009.jpg
This is looking at what they've done to the ramps for the 16th ave bridge that goes over the train tracks
http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a53/korzym/Image010.jpg

[hulkrogan]

The NIMBY's are out in full force in Rocky Ridge. I was stopped waiting to turn from Rocky Ridge Road onto Crowchild and had some lady with flyers approach my car (and every other one stopped) frantically yelling "Do you know this intersection is going to be closed and the traffic will put our children in danger?". I replied: "Do you not want the Stoney Trail and Crowchild interchange to be built? Or would you like the LRT extension cancelled? I doubt you'll complain with the increase in property values. Or should the city build a several million dollar special overpass just for you because you didn't research a road closure that was planned since 1998 before you bought your house".

People are brutal.

[lubicon]

The NIMBY's are out in full force in Rocky Ridge. I was stopped waiting to turn from Rocky Ridge Road onto Crowchild and had some lady with flyers approach my car (and every other one stopped) frantically yelling "Do you know this intersection is going to be closed and the traffic will put our children in danger?". I replied: "Do you not want the Stoney Trail and Crowchild interchange to be built? Or would you like the LRT extension cancelled? I doubt you'll complain with the increase in property values. Or should the city build a several million dollar special overpass just for you because you didn't research a road closure that was planned since 1998 before you bought your house".

People are brutal.

It seems like this is the fall back line of defence for pretty much any new project that is proposed. You see it all the time, or so it seems.

Tuscany has been screaming for a new middle school for years (it's not safe for the children to be bussed long distances in case you didn't know). Well now we're getting one and guess what, it will be dangerous for the children because traffic will increase around the school.

[freeweed]

Tuscany has been screaming for a new middle school for years (it's not safe for the children to be bussed long distances in case you didn't know). Well now we're getting one and guess what, it will be dangerous for the children because traffic will increase around the school.

Clearly the only solution is to eliminate the children. Then there will be no children at risk.

[lubicon]

hulkrogan, did you really that lady those questions, and if so what was her response?

[Beltliner]

hulkrogan, did you really that lady those questions, and if so what was her response?

Really now, Lubicon--you were expecting a printable answer from Mrs Johnson of Rocky Ridge (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071230/) to the guy's rhetorical questions? :P

Especially with the sort of drivel coming out of The Fishwrap (http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/calgary/Calgary+residents+facing+road+closure+fear+traffic+chaos/1368851/story.html) on the subject?

[hulkrogan]

hulkrogan, did you really that lady those questions, and if so what was her response?


Yes, I really did ask her those questions, and she turned away immediately without saying anything and frantically scuttled off to the next vehicle. I wish I knew a cop I could get to sit there in the mornings and hand her jay walking tickets.

[hulkrogan]

Really now, Lubicon--you were expecting a printable answer from Mrs Johnson of Rocky Ridge (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071230/) to the guy's rhetorical questions? :P

Especially with the sort of drivel coming out of The Fishwrap (http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/calgary/Calgary+residents+facing+road+closure+fear+traffic+chaos/1368851/story.html) on the subject?


Does anyone know where to find contact information for people such as Lauree Phillps who is mentioned in that article? It may be her that was handing out those pamphlets. I'd love to ask people why they bought houses there without first taking a look at a development plan that has been in place since 1998.

My parents bought a house in the area in 2000 and knew all along that Rocky Ridge Road would close and there would be increased traffic on Rocky Ridge Boulevard near their house as cars would be forced that way to use 12 Mile Coulee Road.

I don't think they are two worried about all the neighbourhood children being killed and maimed by cars...

In fact, the children living near Rocky Ridge Road are now safer than ever. There will barely be any traffic to look for when they cross!

[Vascilli]

The NIMBY's are out in full force in Rocky Ridge. I was stopped waiting to turn from Rocky Ridge Road onto Crowchild and had some lady with flyers approach my car (and every other one stopped) frantically yelling "Do you know this intersection is going to be closed and the traffic will put our children in danger?". I replied: "Do you not want the Stoney Trail and Crowchild interchange to be built? Or would you like the LRT extension cancelled? I doubt you'll complain with the increase in property values. Or should the city build a several million dollar special overpass just for you because you didn't research a road closure that was planned since 1998 before you bought your house".

People are brutal.

Teach your kids to look both ways before crossing. :rolleyes:

What was their response?

[canlefty]

Teach your kids to look both ways before crossing. :rolleyes:

What was their response?

Easy there now... that would mean parents would have to take responsibility instead of creating fear-mongering scapegoats to place blame. :rolleyes:

[mersar]

From what they were saying on the radio council has put the decision on the closure off until late April. QR managed to play a soundbite from one of the most vocal people, indicated that they managed to only get 600 signatures. So thats 3.6% of the 2008 census population in the two communities (16642) who bothered to sign the petition. Compared to Brentwood that managed I believe it was 800 of their 6100 when the TOD issue came up.

[Full Mountain]

from what I read over here (http://calgary.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20090309/CGY_Rocky_Intersection_090309/20090309/?hub=CalgaryHome) it sounds like they are going to ask the province to see if there is any way that the plan can be revised

[WIGS]

Clearly the only solution is to eliminate the children. Then there will be no children at risk.

had I been drinking water when I read this, I would have involuntarily spit it out :haha:

[freeweed]

What I do find perplexing is the city's position: "this was only ever a temporary road", as if it was meant to be superceded by something else in the future.

Seeing as no road access into either area has really changed in years, I'm not sure why that temporary road ever existed in the first place - or remained after what is supposedly sufficient for the community was built. If anything, a larger community needs BETTER road access - yet here we're seeing exactly the opposite. Build a ton of road capacity when it's not needed (again, why?) and then cut it down as the community grows. And scramble to add traffic controls to roads clearly over capacity.

Like I've said before, it's as if the city suddenly closed down the University LRT station, telling everyone "hey, Brentwood is just down the street - what, we built a bunch of new residential by it? Eh, there's plenty of capacity, trust us".

Don't even get me started as to why the hell much of the high density housing was built furthest from the future LRT station, thereby guaranteeing even more road use. Pure genius on the part of city planners and/or developers.

[mersar]

From how I understand it the road existed because it always had. Before it was Rocky Ridge Road it was 101st Street NW, which falls on the old township/range road system as Range Road 24. They left it in place while the community was being built to provide construction access, especially after they tore out parts of 85th Street, which used to run from Crowfoot (essentially right by where the 7-Eleven is) up past the prisons, leaving only the small part thats left in Arbour Lake and then the stretch north of Country Hills, and before Stoney was built up to Country Hills.

[freeweed]

Oh, my annoyances aside - this better not impact the opening of the LRT or the Stoney/Crowchild interchange. I'll be out for people's blood if this ends up being posturing with no change in results (ie: someone better have a feasible alternative on the table here).

[MalcolmTucker]

^ There is no better way that costs less than $75 million and still comply with provincial highway standards. Of course, you can likely keep parts for much less, but the cheapest is the least useful, RRR --> Crowchild west could likely be done for $3-5 million.

I think my prediction might be a bit low considering how hard it is to fit in with the lack of spacing and the major grade separation that is needed there. To go south/east bound on Crowchild, one would either have to have a tunnel until there was a safe place to merge, or to west/northbound and have a turnabout west of 12 mile Coulee Rd. to head back south/east.

The road is there because Dale Hodges kept it open in 1998, when he convinced council to pass a special amendment to the Rocky Ridge ASP. Otherwise, it would have been closed when Crowchild/1A was upgraded to four lanes.

And yes, if they get a delay past the next meeting, there is no way it will not impact the opening date of this phase of the interchange. It needs to be closed for earthwork.

[mersar]

Yeah, if they end up going back to the design board guaranteed it will be pushed into late 2010 or 2011 is my bet to finish the one ramp. Fortunately the bridge structures under Crowchild on the east side, and possibly the SB to EB bridge can still go ahead without being impacted, the question will be if the province will foot up anymore money to change things yet again. The LRT has a bit more of a cushion though only so much, it will depend a lot on exactly where the station will be situated relative to the intersection.

[craner]

^

The road is there because Dale Hodges kept it open in 1998, when he convinced council to pass a special amendment to the Rocky Ridge ASP. Otherwise, it would have been closed when Crowchild/1A was upgraded to four lanes.

And yes, if they get a delay past the next meeting, there is no way it will not impact the opening date of this phase of the interchange. It needs to be closed for earthwork.

:hell: :pissed: :rant: :grrr: :mad: :dunno: :whatthefuck: :brickwall: :twoguns:

[lubicon]

Is there anything the community can really do, or the City for that matter. If the road is infringing on the interchange the province can probably say 'screw you' and force them to close the road off in order for the interchagne to proceed. If this area is actually part of the TUC (which I'm not 100% sure of) then there is likely very little the City can do, even if they wanted to.

I don't have any sympathy for those who are trying to stop the closure of a road that was always intended to be temporary, but I will admit it was very short sighted to build Rocky Ridge/Royal Oak with only 2 access roads, both of which are awkward to access and use.

[MalcolmTucker]

^ You just need to spin it better!

"The new access roads in Rocky Ridge mean I don't have to take a second trip to go to the grocery store, they are right on the way into the neighborhood!"

"These new access routes sure do improve safety, they keep speeding cars from ripping through the middle of our community, and they have stopped short cutting to get to our malls!"

"I hear that trucks from the cement plant won't be cutting through our neighborhood to help build the new Stoney interchange and our LRT station, thank god they closed that access road!"

[mersar]

The area is outside the TUC (although only just), which is why any solution would be complicated and could potentially leave the city on the hook for at least some of the cost. It isn't outside the realm of possibility that the province's suggested solution could turn out to be that they'll move the ramps so theres room for the city to build a Beddington Trail type flyover out of the city's pockets. Personally I can't see that being the suggestion though, I suspect the province will no want to budge too much, but we'll have to see.

[craner]

Did you hear what the Engineer hired by the community suggested as a possible solution ?
to paraphrase:
"there is plenty of room to redesign the interchange (at Stoney & Crow) in a standard cloverleaf configuration".

I just shook my head and thought - when was the last time you saw a cloverleaf interchange built - 30 years ago ?? There is a reason they don't get built anymore - THEY DON'T WORK (i.e. exit/entry weaving, speeds, etc.):koko:

[mersar]

Yep. Either the city or the province had a page linked off one of the NW projects explaining why Cloverleafs aren't used anymore.

[RAFS]

Came across this website when I was trying to figure out what type of interchanges are the best. None of these are the best!!!

http://www.curiousread.com/2008/12/worlds-worst-intersections-pics.html

[canlefty]

I just shook my head and thought - when was the last time you saw a cloverleaf interchange built - 30 years ago ?? There is a reason they don't get built anymore - THEY DON'T WORK (i.e. exit/entry weaving, speeds, etc.):koko:

This is really the big reason (speed is a tertiary concern). As we all know, the province will give a license to anyone, and as a result we have many people out there who don't know how to merge.

Imagine a 300m ish weave lane on a cloverleaf with a 68 yr old asian woman driving a minivan stopped dead in the middle of the lane "waiting" and ergo blocking both entry and exit.... If people here don't know what to do on an generous 750m merge lane with extra shoulder runout, we can all see that a cloverleaf would be useless here. Then throw in even the slightest bit of snow forcing every man/woman/child on the road to drive 50km/h below the posted limit and you've got a compounding disaster.

/rant

[korzym]

alright chaps, they made an update to their winter photo section which I ripped into them for lacking any decent pictures. these pics are from the stoney trail group site

16th NE #1
http://www.stoneytrailgroup.ca/media/102_0606.jpg
16th NE #2
http://www.stoneytrailgroup.ca/media/102_0612.jpg

country hills blvd
http://www.stoneytrailgroup.ca/media/102_0644.jpg

deerfoot #1, apparently taken as the helicopter was crashing to the right
http://www.stoneytrailgroup.ca/media/102_0668.jpg
deerfoot#2
http://www.stoneytrailgroup.ca/media/102_0669.jpg

[korzym]

Driving into Calgary, at 16th NE & stoney
5_QTlTuTFD4

Driving out of Calgary
http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a53/korzym/Image038.jpg

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a53/korzym/Image034.jpg

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a53/korzym/Image035.jpg

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a53/korzym/Image033.jpg

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a53/korzym/Image032.jpg

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a53/korzym/Image031.jpg

[YYCguys]

I sure wish there were highway patrols out at the Deerfoot/Stoney construction zone where the speed limit is 80 but most drivers choose to make up their own speed limit, mostly faster. Does this speed limit apply to after dark when the workers are probably not working anyways?

[frinkprof]

^You're probably right. However, it's a lot better than it was a year ago when there was such a weird transition from the old lane markers to the detour lane markers.