[You Need A Thneed]

It sounds like the bands wanting to trim the size of the land they give up (though nothing was said if they were willing to take less then what was offered, I doubt it) as well as get those issues they had resolved.

I would certainly think that this would mean that the province would be giving less money.

I wonder if they would go for a plan that goes over the weaslehead, but lets us have a nice round corner by Glenmore/37th so that the city doesn't have to level a bunch of Lakeview and Glamorgan.

That would be a lot less land taken from the band, and make the 37th Ave option a much easier one to take.

[freeweed]

I wonder if they would go for a plan that goes over the weaslehead, but lets us have a nice round corner by Glenmore/37th so that the city doesn't have to level a bunch of Lakeview and Glamorgan.

Looking at a map the other day, I wondered this very thing. I can't believe we haven't seen discussion about this. Kind of a mid-ground solution.

[Coldrsx]

Edmonton needed the ring-road more anyway. More people want to avoid that city. :haha:

(take it easy - I'm only joking)

Actually it was for all of the Calgarian's wanting a mall with real selection.

[You Need A Thneed]

Looking at a map the other day, I wondered this very thing. I can't believe we haven't seen discussion about this. Kind of a mid-ground solution.

Looking at it on google maps, I think that such a design would only require about 1/3 to 1/2 as much land from the Tsuu Tina as the original proposal. It could eliminate the need to demolish any houses in Lakeview or Glamorgan. Just the savings from not buying up all the houses could fund a good portion of the bridge over the weaselhead.

If the band is willing to do that, I'd say go ahead.

[Oliver Klozov]

Looking at a map the other day, I wondered this very thing. I can't believe we haven't seen discussion about this. Kind of a mid-ground solution.

That's the former army base land and I think that's what they want to develop. The price will go up (per hectare) not down.

Military returns land to Calgary aboriginal band

After 15 years of removing century-old shrapnel, the government has finally returned a former military training ground back to Calgary's Tsuu T'ina First Nation.

BY CALGARY HERALD JULY 30, 2006


CALGARY — After 15 years of removing century-old shrapnel, the government has finally returned a former military training ground back to Calgary's Tsuu T'ina First Nation.

Chief Sandford Big Plume, 47, prayed with officials and elders inside a teepee Saturday morning, concluding the tribe's four-day spiritual land-reunion ceremony.

"Today is a historic day for the Tsuu T'ina Nation," Big Plume announced to a crowd of approximately 50 people after the ceremony. "We hope this land will be well protected."

Formerly known as the Harvey Barracks, the 380 hectares of land at the northeast tip of the Sarcee reserve in southwest Calgary was first sold to the department of national defence in 1952.

It became a part of the Canadian Forces Base, which was established on a neighbouring piece of land. That area was first leased out by the Tsuu T'ina nation in 1901.

Alberta agreed to give back the Harvey Barracks in 1991. What followed the out-of-court settlement was a long and pricey cleanup operation.

"It took 15 years, and the last few years we even worked through all of the winter to ensure we could return the land to the Tsuu T'ina nation," said Daniel Godbout, Director of environmental engineering management from the department of national defence.

Digging up thousands of rounds of old bullets and explosives, he said, has cost more than $130 million in total.

When Saturday's ceremony finally put an end to the cleanup and land disputes, local aboriginals celebrated with tears of joy.

Former chief Clifford Big Plume said he can't help but feel emotional about the return of his homeland.

"The government once asked me what I want for this land," he said. "I said ‘I want it back to the way it used to be.'

"Finally, after 24 years, it's come true."

Sandford Big Plume said a casino and retail outlet will be built in the area in the near future.

"Our community is growing," he said. "Economic development is the only way we see a future betterment for the community as a whole."


fchintheherald.canwest.com

Yup, sacred land back to the way it used to be ...............

well for a year or two. :rolleyes:

[Mazrim]

Maybe the native spirits they're building near give the Casino good luck.

[bigcanuck]

There's already a casino on Glenmore/37th - no need to build another one just a few minutes away.

[kw5150]

There's already a casino on Glenmore/37th - no need to build another one just a few minutes away.

The article is from 2006.

[Koolfire]

Your PDF link isn't working for me, but I'll agree that there's a fair amount of truck traffic on 901...I just have my doubts that it's higher than Highway 1. I've driven 901 and 1 into Calgary dozens of times and generally see more trucks on Highway 1. Maybe I'm driving at the wrong time of day.
With Stoney Trail NE/NW finished, there's also a free flowing connection through the City that might persuade truckers to use Highway 1 over 901.


http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/4046.htm Go to Open House Presentation 2 Page 21 for the breakdown of where trucks are entering the city. Page 24 has a route of HWY 22X Freeway.

[MalcolmTucker]

Was just at the open house at the Elbow Springs golf course. Besides the save Glenmore Park people there in their red shirts, there was also a small group of people who cornered one of the consultants on noise protection, who didn't find it acceptable that the province wouldn't build noise barriers taller than standard (or enclose the road) for houses that overlook the road from hills.

I guess they should have looked at the transportation plan before building their million dollar mountain view acreages!

[tmjr]

Nope. It is downstream of Stoney Trail.

The image below is obviously taken long before Stoney Trail was built but if the road was there it would go from the lower left to upper right passing between the intake and the plant.

http://www.ae.ca/projects/images/waters/bearsint.jpg

Sorry if off-topic, but if the intake is downstream from the reservoir, what's the point of the reservoir? Is the dam for flood control?

[MalcolmTucker]

Sorry if off-topic, but if the intake is downstream from the reservoir, what's the point of the reservoir? Is the dam for flood control?

The Glenmore dam was built to allow settling out of silt before water was brought into the treatment plants. The Bearspaw dam was built to provide a bit of hydro power and to help stop ice jams which continually flooded Sunnyside and other low sitting communities. (if my memory serves from ready 'the calgary project')

[Mazrim]

http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/4046.htm Go to Open House Presentation 2 Page 21 for the breakdown of where trucks are entering the city. Page 24 has a route of HWY 22X Freeway.

Interesting report. I like what they're planning out there.

What's important to note from those figures is that it doesn't mention anything West of the city, which is important to the SW Ring Road discussion. The majority of truck traffic coming from East of Gleichen still takes Highway 1 into the city. There's a large influx of traffic onto 901/22X coming from Highway 24 (Carsland/Vulcan/even Lethbridge), and I imagine that traffic will likely not be heading to the West side of the city. Most of it likely stays in the City. I'd love to see something showing truck volumes on 22X from East of the City to West of the City.

[freeweed]

Couple of comments about Stoney here. (http://www.calgaryherald.com/Checklist+Calgary+street+construction+plans+Will+your+commute+affected/4541478/story.html)

This caught my eye:

Stoney Trail new overpass bridge over CPR line south of Nose Hill Drive, open in 2012

Maybe I just overlooked this, but... why build a CPR bridge if there is no near-term plan to increase capacity over the river? At least not that I'm aware of?

[You Need A Thneed]

Couple of comments about Stoney here. (http://www.calgaryherald.com/Checklist+Calgary+street+construction+plans+Will+your+commute+affected/4541478/story.html)

This caught my eye:



Maybe I just overlooked this, but... why build a CPR bridge if there is no near-term plan to increase capacity over the river? At least not that I'm aware of?
Interchange plan. (http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/Content/docType490/production/stnhd-ohb3.pdf)

Perhaps they will build the bridge over CPR so that they can complete the ramps to the final standard at the Nose Hill interchange?

Perhaps the river crossing is a separate project in the eyes of Alberta Transportation.

[freeweed]

Huh, neat.

There's an EXISTING pedestrian underpass there?

[mersar]

Maybe I just overlooked this, but... why build a CPR bridge if there is no near-term plan to increase capacity over the river? At least not that I'm aware of?

I believe its due to the proximity of the Nose Hill interchange. Essentially the exit ramps dont end until the tracks, and building this bridge is pretty cheap, and not really that intrusive (there shouldn't really be any road closures related to it until nearly the end I'd bet)

[You Need A Thneed]

Huh, neat.

There's an EXISTING pedestrian underpass there?

Apparently. (http://maps.google.ca/?ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Calgary,+Division+No.+6,+Alberta&ll=51.108807,-114.223942&spn=0.00293,0.005262&t=h&z=18)

[lubicon]

Just realized that the new interchange at Nose Hill Dr will mean NB Stoney will have 3 lanes pretty much as soon as it crosses the river (right now it's still 2 lanes until about 1/2 way between Nose Hill and Tuscany Blvd interchange). That will be huge as right now traffic really bogs down going up the hill when there are large trucks working there way up the hill. This interchagne will make my life easier when I'm heading north on Stoney, but actually makes my drive worse when I am heading south.

[tmjr]

I know there is an 'open house' regarding the Stoney/Nose Hill interchange this Sunday (unfortunately, I can't go). Is anyone planning to go?

I am really, really hoping that they come up with some solution OTHER than southbound Scenic Acres residents having to go through yet ANOTHER traffic light before getting onto Stoney Southbound (Tuscany residents already have it bad enough with the SLOW, long road in/out of Tuscany!).

If anyone is going, could you please advocate for some other solution (e.g. what they did on Crowchild near Brisebois/Northland)? :) Or at the very least, advocate for ameliorating things by changing the traffic lights at Scenic Acres Link/Tuscany Blvd into roundabouts? :D

[Oliver Klozov]

I believe its due to the proximity of the Nose Hill interchange. Essentially the exit ramps dont end until the tracks, and building this bridge is pretty cheap,...

That's exactly what was said in the news release. It is to give the appropriate distance for an acceleration lane from EB Nose Hill to SB Stoney.

It becomes obvious on the interchange plan:

www.transportation.alberta.ca/Content/docType490/production/stnhd-ohb3.pdf

[Mazrim]

I am really, really hoping that they come up with some solution OTHER than southbound Scenic Acres residents having to go through yet ANOTHER traffic light before getting onto Stoney Southbound (Tuscany residents already have it bad enough with the SLOW, long road in/out of Tuscany!).

I have some bad news for you...there's pretty much no changes that will happen at this time. Alberta Transportation had a number of options to choose from and this was the most preferred choice. I think there was 9 or something. The alternative to make the Tuscany exit less painful was to make a short weave onto Stoney before the Nose Hill exit, which performed very poorly once traffic volumes rose (wouldn't be very long before that happened).

Trust me, they would have loved to do this differently but this was the best option for smooth traffic flow. I think once you see it in action you'll probably agree the alternative might have been worse.

I believe the design for Nose Hill is ready to go to tender, so I guess this open house is just for information purposes only?

[tmjr]

I have some bad news for you...there's pretty much no changes that will happen at this time. Alberta Transportation had a number of options to choose from and this was the most preferred choice. I think there was 9 or something. The alternative to make the Tuscany exit less painful was to make a short weave onto Stoney before the Nose Hill exit, which performed very poorly once traffic volumes rose (wouldn't be very long before that happened).

I sort of thought that that might be the case :( ; I imagine that they are reasonably thorough in their considerations. With that said, do you know if anything like what was done at Brisebois/Northland and Crowchild (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Calgary,+Division+No.+6,+Alberta,+Canada&ll=51.090232,-114.13545&spn=0.002766,0.006571&t=h&z=18) was even considered?

In view of the extra traffic light, would they be open to enhancing the intersections at the Scenic Acres/Tuscany exchange, out of pity :haha: ?

[Oliver Klozov]

With that said, do you know if anything like what was done at Brisebois/Northland and Crowchild (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Calgary,+Division+No.+6,+Alberta,+Canada&ll=51.090232,-114.13545&spn=0.002766,0.006571&t=h&z=18) was even considered?

There used to be links to the ultimate plans on AB Trans website but they're gone now. I can't recall if they planned to do that eventually or not. I suspect they could once the added lanes on Stoney go in.

In view of the extra traffic light, would they be open to enhancing the intersections at the Scenic Acres/Tuscany exchange, out of pity :haha: ?

Pity? :haha:

Not likely. :D

[Oliver Klozov]

The lights at Nose Hill won't be as bad for traffic from Tuscany/Scenic to southbound Stoney as they normally are in a pure diamond interchange like some of the others on Stoney are. With this one being a Parclo having a ramp in the NW quadrant for WB Nose Hill to SB Stoney there won't be a left turn phase on WB Nose Hill. It will just be a 2-phase light with SB ramp traffic possibly getting as long a green as E-W Nose Hill. :tup:

[freeweed]

Tuscany/Scenic Acres were, to put it bluntly, completely fucked as soon as that idiotic entrance for Tuscany was allowed in the initial planning. It should never have been allowed to line up the way it did.

If the 2 neighbourhoods had shared a proper entrance from day one, I guarantee you more effort would have been put into a proper interchange there. Unfortunately the end result is the obvious conclusion of patchwork attempts to fix a horrible mistake.

[Jack Doe]

Apparently. (http://maps.google.ca/?ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Calgary,+Division+No.+6,+Alberta&ll=51.108807,-114.223942&spn=0.00293,0.005262&t=h&z=18)

Um, I'm not exactly sure if that is a pedestrian tunnel. I seem to remember that at the time it was built it was an animal underpass and would have to be abandoned when the ultimate Stoney/Nose Hill I/C was built. I think the human route follows the river underneath the Stoney Trail bridge. I could be wrong. Perhaps somebody with local knowledge could enlighten us.

My Sherlocks map shows a culvert at that location for a local watercourse but the pathway ends at the Stoney Tr ROW.

[Jack Doe]

Tuscany/Scenic Acres were, to put it bluntly, completely fucked as soon as that idiotic entrance for Tuscany was allowed in the initial planning. It should never have been allowed to line up the way it did.

If the 2 neighbourhoods had shared a proper entrance from day one, I guarantee you more effort would have been put into a proper interchange there. Unfortunately the end result is the obvious conclusion of patchwork attempts to fix a horrible mistake.

Pretty much. The original plans for the East Scenic Acres ASP and the West Scenic Acres ASP [Tuscany] had Tuscany Blvd and Scenic Acres Link having their own interchanges. The idea was to prevent people from Tuscany short-cutting through Scenic Acres. Back in the 80s and 90s this was considered good planning.

Fast forward to this decade and highway engineers have figured out that having four interchanges (Nose Hill, Scenic Acres, Tuscany, Crowchild) in close proximity to each other might not be such a good idea. Thus, you get Tuscany Blvd re-aligned to meet Scenic Acres Link. All things considered, its probably the best solution to a problem that probably could have been avoided.

[freeweed]

Pretty much. The original plans for the East Scenic Acres ASP and the West Scenic Acres ASP [Tuscany] had Tuscany Blvd and Scenic Acres Link having their own interchanges. The idea was to prevent people from Tuscany short-cutting through Scenic Acres. Back in the 80s and 90s this was considered good planning.

Fast forward to this decade and highway engineers have figured out that having four interchanges (Nose Hill, Scenic Acres, Tuscany, Crowchild) in close proximity to each other might not be such a good idea. Thus, you get Tuscany Blvd re-aligned to meet Scenic Acres Link. All things considered, its probably the best solution to a problem that probably could have been avoided.

Ahhhhhhh, thank you very much. This is the first explanation of this that I've seen that makes any sense whatsoever. And I believe you're correct. I remember those idiotic statements of "prevent short-cutting" being very prevalent and in fact that attitude persisted until very recently in this city. Heck, Silver Springs/Varsity STILL has that idiotic bus-only road as far as I know, and I'm pretty sure several other NW communities still have theirs. And Crowfoot station has that absolutely retarded "no vehicle access from Scenic Acres to the Park n Ride lot" setup, which would completely infuriate me if I lived there.

Really what this comes down to is the previous generation of NIMBYs fucking everyone else over for all time. Dear municipalities: this is why, when people complain about "traffic" as a reason to not do something - DON'T LISTEN. They're almost always going to fuck something else up.

[lubicon]

Tuscany exit procedures could be partially fixed by:

1. upping the speed limit on Tuscany Blvd (east of the first set of lights) to 60 or even 70 km/h from the currently stupidly low 50 limit.

2. changing the lights at the interchange to a roundabout, or at least having the SB lane onto Stoney be fully free flow w/o having to stop at the lights.

It would be a partial fix to a cluster that I have to live with every day.

[tmjr]

:previous:
I agree, especially about the roundabout. My question is, what do we need to do to make it happen??

[Cage]

... Heck, Silver Springs/Varsity STILL has that idiotic bus-only road as far as I know, and I'm pretty sure several other NW communities still have theirs.

Are you talking about the Ranchlands Dalhousie link road
http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=downtown+calgary+ab&aq=&sll=49.165767,-123.145752&sspn=0.153102,0.4216&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Calgary,+Division+No.+6,+Alberta&ll=51.115148,-114.173505&spn=0.00231,0.006588&t=h&z=18

Not aware of any other bus only roads.

[mersar]

Are you talking about the Ranchlands Dalhousie link road
http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=downtown+calgary+ab&aq=&sll=49.165767,-123.145752&sspn=0.153102,0.4216&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Calgary,+Division+No.+6,+Alberta&ll=51.115148,-114.173505&spn=0.00231,0.006588&t=h&z=18

Not aware of any other bus only roads.

There was one from Silver Springs Gate into Varisity Acres through the golf course. There was also another one with a bus trap on Nose Hill by the twin arenas into Scenic Acres, and there is an existing one up in Rocky Ridge by the sports fields and also one up in Vista Heights going into the industrial/commercial area to the north of it.

[Jack Doe]

Heck, Silver Springs/Varsity STILL has that idiotic bus-only road as far as I know...

Sarcee Trail (Silver Springs Gate) was originally supposed to go down the eastern part of Silver Springs, cross the Bow River, have an interchange at Bowness Road near 65/66 St NW and then connect with the SW portion of Sarcee (eliminating the intersection at 34 Av NW).

This is the only river crossing from the old transportation plan that I still support. I absolutely abhorred the Shaganappi Trail crossing across the Bow to connect to Bow Tr/Sarcee Tr and could only agree to the the 50 Av SW crossing of the Elbow if it was a high-level bridge (i.e. escarpment-to-escarpment).

I doubt that Sarcee Trail will ever cross the Bow River, and in that respect, the Silver Springs/Varsity bus-only road no longer makes any sense. I think you could build an intersection or a roundabout here and it might be beneficial to the local residents. It would probably decrease congestion at the Crowchild/53 St NW I/C and I don't really see it as a viable cut-through route to Market Mall.

BTW, they should rename the northern part of Sarcee Trail to something like Spy Hill Trail.

[frinkprof]

There was one from Silver Springs Gate into Varisity Acres through the golf course. There was also another one with a bus trap on Nose Hill by the twin arenas into Scenic Acres, and there is an existing one up in Rocky Ridge by the sports fields and also one up in Vista Heights going into the industrial/commercial area to the north of it.There's one up in Christie Park near the West LRT line, and there's two gates on either side of Bow Bottom Trail that connects Queensland/Diamond Cove with Lake Bonavista.

[freeweed]

I'd love to know what kind of idiot driver would look at these 2 options:

1. 80km/h, completely freeflow, 3 lanes

2. 50km/h, stop signs, traffic lights, traffic calming measures, curves, 1 lane, playground/school zones

And pick #2.

Seriously, since Crowchild became an expressway all of this is unnecessary and just pandering to fearful old people. But then again, there's no road access into Scenic Acres from Crowfoot station because people there honestly believe that cars would prefer driving through their residential neighbourhood rather than taking the freaking freeway instead. Some people don't deserve a voice.

PS: thanks mersar - I know over the years I've stumbled upon nearly a dozen of these things in Calgary, but I can never remember where they are anymore. Mostly because they're so out of the way that no one in their right mind would even consider driving anywhere near them when you have a freeway next door.

[Stang]

Tuscany exit procedures could be partially fixed by:

1. upping the speed limit on Tuscany Blvd (east of the first set of lights) to 60 or even 70 km/h from the currently stupidly low 50 limit.

2. changing the lights at the interchange to a roundabout, or at least having the SB lane onto Stoney be fully free flow w/o having to stop at the lights.

It would be a partial fix to a cluster that I have to live with every day.

Something similar to the Valley Ridge roundabout would work really well there. The most popular/direct route (SB Tuscany onto SB Stoney) could have its own lane and bypass the roundabout. All other traffic could enter the roundabout. I know that the city has said that they'd like to put more roundabouts in, and this would be a perfect place for one. Assuming there's enough room to do it properly, although it seems like there's plenty.

Also - I have always been an advocate of roundabouts in certain situations, but I just returned from Europe and my opinion is as reinforced as ever.

[tmjr]

I know that the city has said that they'd like to put more roundabouts in, and this would be a perfect place for one. Assuming there's enough room to do it properly, although it seems like there's plenty.


Who has responsibility for the intersections on the ramps off Stoney? Is that the city's responsibility or Alberta Transportation? That is, if roundabouts were to be retrofitted at the intersections in question, which level of government would be paying for it?

[Stang]

Who has responsibility for the intersections on the ramps off Stoney? Is that the city's responsibility or Alberta Transportation? That is, if roundabouts were to be retrofitted at the intersections in question, which level of government would be paying for it?

That's a good question as it is literally where a city road (or two city roads if you count Scenic Acres Link) meets an on-ramp to a provincial road.

[niwell]

Are the bus only roads still in use, or have any been converted to accept all vehicles? I have terrible memories of the one connecting Silver Springs with Varsity Estates. Far too often a car would get stuck and they would divert bus service (137 or 143 NW loop IIRC) without any notification. Got stuck having to walk a far ways home a few times.

From what I can remember we used to call them "bus traps", which never really made any sense to me.

Calgary was always pretty terrible for the whole "no through traffic" between communities thing. Of course through traffic wouldn't be a huge deal if there were more than 2 entrances to any given neighbourhood. New areas seem to be a bit better at least.

[freeweed]

Are the bus only roads still in use, or have any been converted to accept all vehicles? I have terrible memories of the one connecting Silver Springs with Varsity Estates. Far too often a car would get stuck and they would divert bus service (137 or 143 NW loop IIRC) without any notification. Got stuck having to walk a far ways home a few times.

:hell: I had entirely forgotten about that. Got caught many times when I lived in Silver Springs. No wonder my subconscious hates those stupid bus traps so much. Always seemed to happen on the coldest/snowiest days too.

[armorand93]

Are the bus only roads still in use, or have any been converted to accept all vehicles? I have terrible memories of the one connecting Silver Springs with Varsity Estates. Far too often a car would get stuck and they would divert bus service (137 or 143 NW loop IIRC) without any notification. Got stuck having to walk a far ways home a few times.

From what I can remember we used to call them "bus traps", which never really made any sense to me.

Calgary was always pretty terrible for the whole "no through traffic" between communities thing. Of course through traffic wouldn't be a huge deal if there were more than 2 entrances to any given neighbourhood. New areas seem to be a bit better at least.

I HATE bus traps. Had to walk my bike under a bus trap near Dalhousie, just so i could get out of Hawkwood. ALSO, they built a bridge between Scenic Acres and Crowfoot Towne Centre. It's a waste of money if the only traffic is Park N' Ride or some weird looking NovaBus

[kw5150]

I can stand bus gates and traps. Who gets these things approved? I was on the team for the crowfoot park and ride and I was apauled that they installed that gate. What a missed opputunity for community connection to crowfoot. BOOO. At least if you walk, it is short. Aren't Roads built for cars? We need to stop creating so many blockades around the city. We are making traffic worse on the main roads by funnelling everyone onto them. Currently the residential road system is build for mid-high volumes of traffic with repsect to width, cornering and site lines. Maybe all of these residential roads should be much more narrow if we are going to block access to many of them.....

[kw5150]

In my opinion, the bus trap at ranchlands destroyed any opportunity to have retail along the main strip. That main road is SO dead now and it basically goes nowhere....pure annoyance. They need to re-open ALL of these road and just patrol them for the first year (not every day) and most of the people speeding (the ones who caused these bus traps to be installed) will be eliminated.

Open up these stupid bus traps
Ease the strain on the main roads.
Patrol for the first year to reduce excessive speeding.
Too many blockades create traffic snarls on the main roads.....

Lets use our roads more effectively!

[GTING]

Since we are on the topic... The bus trap on Centre Street and Beddington Trail. If you are going North on centre you have to go way out of your way in order to get back to Centre (Harvest Hills Blvd). Before it was there people were concerned that the traffic on Centre was going to be too heavy with the new communities North of it.

I can't stand people who complain about things like that. You bought a house on one of the few N-S roads that goes downtown and you thought "Why should this be a busy road? Where will the children play?" I live downtown and I don't complain about how busy the road in front of my condo is!

ps. this should probably be moved to the Roads thread

[kw5150]

Exactly.....Good point and good point.......I will watch for comments in the roads thread.

[Oliver Klozov]

That's a good question as it is literally where a city road (or two city roads if you count Scenic Acres Link) meets an on-ramp to a provincial road.

The TUC boundary in cases involving Stoney Trail Interchanges.

[tmjr]

The TUC boundary in cases involving Stoney Trail Interchanges.

I.e. everything within the TUC is the province's responsibility?

[fusili]

I.e. everything within the TUC is the province's responsibility?

They own the land, but they did give the City some authority over what occurs in the TUC through land use planning. There are some City policies regarding development in the TUC, but ultimately it is the provinces responsibility as they own the land.

[frinkprof]

Most of the bus traps have been or will be converted to bus gates. These are gates that open up sort of like an arm at a train crossing and are remotely operated by the bus as it approaches.

Couple reasons for these are that you don't get nearly as much of a problem with cars actually getting stuck in the bus trap and therefore screwing up the bus route, and also they allow narrower community shuttle buses to be used on the routes with the bus-only accesses.

[fusili]

Most of the bus traps have been or will be converted to bus gates. These are gates that open up sort of like an arm at a train crossing and are remotely operated by the bus as it approaches.

Couple reasons for these are that you don't get nearly as much of a problem with cars actually getting stuck in the bus trap and therefore screwing up the bus route, and also they allow narrower community shuttle buses to be used on the routes with the bus-only accesses.

NO!! Make them raising bollards. Then we can see what happens when a car drives over a bollard that is rising. It is awesome.

[frinkprof]

NO!! Make them raising bollards. Then we can see what happens when a car drives over a bollard that is rising. It is awesome.It would be like certain pinball machines where the ball passes over a sensor or falls in a hole and a post comes up and launches the pinball back into play.

[Stang]

I HATE bus traps. Had to walk my bike under a bus trap near Dalhousie, just so i could get out of Hawkwood. ALSO, they built a bridge between Scenic Acres and Crowfoot Towne Centre. It's a waste of money if the only traffic is Park N' Ride or some weird looking NovaBus

I don't agree with the bus trap, but I find that bridge has improved car access to Crowfoot immensely, from both directions of Crowchild. If you're coming from the West it is more obvious, but even if you're coming from the East - go across Nose Hill Drive and enter Crowfoot near the bus loop. Many, many times better than dealing with Nose Hill Drive any way you slice it.

[lubicon]

I don't agree with the bus trap, but I find that bridge has improved car access to Crowfoot immensely, from both directions of Crowchild. If you're coming from the West it is more obvious, but even if you're coming from the East - go across Nose Hill Drive and enter Crowfoot near the bus loop. Many, many times better than dealing with Nose Hill Drive any way you slice it.

I echo that comment. It has improved access into Crowfoot immensely.

[You Need A Thneed]

Map of Calgary's bus traps/gates on page 14. (http://www.tac-atc.ca/english/resourcecentre/readingroom/conference/conf2010/docs/t1/jordan.pdf)

[Koolfire]

I have mixed feelings about bus traps. Taking the one out in Beddington is extremely costly as the interchange would have to be rebuilt otherwise there wouldn't be full access. I would rather see an increase of the speed limit on Beddington Blvd to 60km\h. I don't quite understand why a road with no homes fronting onto it is limited to 50.

The Edmonton Trail/4st NE is annoying but I can understand why it's there. I have mixed feelings about removing it.

The one between Dalhousie and Ranchland. Ridiculous. I would be so annoyed if I lived in Ranchland or Dalhousie. Having to go so far out of the way to get to the other side.


Noticed that the Silver Springs to Varsity isn't on that map. Maybe it only shows active ones...?

The crowfoot one, I wonder if it was a move to limit the traffic at the PnR more then the neighborhood traffic. The way it's setup now traffic flows in and out easily. Having a left turn into Scenic Acres open to cars could cause traffic problems.

[armorand93]

The one between Dalhousie and Ranchland. Ridiculous. I would be so annoyed if I lived in Ranchland or Dalhousie. Having to go so far out of the way to get to the other side.


THAT ONE PISSED ME OFF SO MUCH. It was a pain in the ass to walk my bike under there, just so I could get to Dalhousie

[freeweed]

I echo that comment. It has improved access into Crowfoot immensely.

Tripled. It's one of the best new features in the area. I used to avoid Crowfoot entirely because of how bad access was.

[freeweed]

The crowfoot one, I wonder if it was a move to limit the traffic at the PnR more then the neighborhood traffic. The way it's setup now traffic flows in and out easily. Having a left turn into Scenic Acres open to cars could cause traffic problems.

From memory, no, it was entirely NIMBY caused. The original plans had road access but the neighbours pissed and moaned that actual CARS would drive on their ROADS, so the city cut off that access.

Unless I'm out to lunch and someone corrects me.

[You Need A Thneed]

From memory, no, it was entirely NIMBY caused. The original plans had road access but the neighbours pissed and moaned that actual CARS would drive on their ROADS, so the city cut off that access.

Unless I'm out to lunch and someone corrects me.

You are pretty much correct, sir.

[lubicon]

I have mixed feelings about bus traps. Taking the one out in Beddington is extremely costly as the interchange would have to be rebuilt otherwise there wouldn't be full access. I would rather see an increase of the speed limit on Beddington Blvd to 60km\h. I don't quite understand why a road with no homes fronting onto it is limited to 50.
The Edmonton Trail/4st NE is annoying but I can understand why it's there. I have mixed feelings about removing it.

The one between Dalhousie and Ranchland. Ridiculous. I would be so annoyed if I lived in Ranchland or Dalhousie. Having to go so far out of the way to get to the other side.


Noticed that the Silver Springs to Varsity isn't on that map. Maybe it only shows active ones...?

The crowfoot one, I wonder if it was a move to limit the traffic at the PnR more then the neighborhood traffic. The way it's setup now traffic flows in and out easily. Having a left turn into Scenic Acres open to cars could cause traffic problems.

The residents of Tuscany wonder the same thing regarding Tuscany Blvd. :hell:

[kw5150]

From memory, no, it was entirely NIMBY caused. The original plans had road access but the neighbours pissed and moaned that actual CARS would drive on their ROADS, so the city cut off that access.

Unless I'm out to lunch and someone corrects me.

You are correct. It also involved the condos across the road.

[mersar]

Observations about the SE Ring Road construction:


ramps at Glenmore starting to take shape
concrete being poured for piers on bridge over shepard canal
piles installed first bridge at 22X and Stoney
piles installed at CN flyover
piles installed at Cranston/McKenzie Lake
lots of earth moving at 17th and Glenmore

[Mazrim]

Thanks for the updates! I really don't go to that side of the City enough. I see Cranston/McKenzie plenty though.

[kw5150]

The Southeast Freeway portion will be very busy when complete. Hopefully busier than the North and East portions. The should have started with the Southeast section first. They should also be upgrading 52 st SE and not sure why that hasn't been dont yet.

[You Need A Thneed]

The Southeast Freeway portion will be very busy when complete. Hopefully busier than the North and East portions. The should have started with the Southeast section first. They should also be upgrading 52 st SE and not sure why that hasn't been dont yet.

52nd Street SE has been ongoing for a number of years already. The new bridge over the canal and the train tracks is going ahead this summer.

[kw5150]

52nd Street SE has been ongoing for a number of years already. The new bridge over the canal and the train tracks is going ahead this summer.

Sweet, but not done yet.

[Mazrim]

The should have started with the Southeast section first.

And have two discontinuous portions of the ring road completed? That doesn't make much sense. (Remember, the NW was going first regardless)

[Ferreth]

And have two discontinuous portions of the ring road completed? That doesn't make much sense. (Remember, the NW was going first regardless)

A completed ring road from McKnight - 114th Ave would see a lot of use from all the NE residential to SE industrial commuters. Also, truck traffic coming from out of town east distributing to the NE and SE industrial, and leaving via same routes. I know our work in the SE Shepard would be using a ring road if it was available now

[freeweed]

Completing the "bypass" portion of the ring road was and always should have been a priority. Whether or not that bypass function is fully utilized yet is another story, but it was long overdue for Calgary to not force all highway traffic through the heart of the city.

[frinkprof]

I was working in the SE ring road corridor today. Unfortunately, not much exciting to report in the area just north of 22X, other than that there is a big sound attenuation berm on the west side of the TUC.

On a completely unrelated note, if I ever move to Copperfield, I am giving everyone permission and encouragement to shoot me in the face.

[You Need A Thneed]

There's a ton of equipment close to the 17th ave interchange now.

[fusili]

I was working in the SE ring road corridor today. Unfortunately, not much exciting to report in the area just north of 22X, other than that there is a big sound attenuation berm on the west side of the TUC.

On a completely unrelated note, if I ever move to Copperfield, I am giving everyone permission and encouragement to shoot me in the face.

The same goes for me and any community outside of the ring road. Or south of Glenmore for that matter.

[kw5150]

And have two discontinuous portions of the ring road completed? That doesn't make much sense. (Remember, the NW was going first regardless)

It would have made perfect sense. Hardly anyone uses the northwest portion. When I was working construction, people were basically crying for an easier way to get from the SE to the NE. They either used deerfoot (blah), 52 st SE (blah) or all the way out in Langdon (blah). The SE portion would have eased traffice for the people needing it most.

[Mazrim]

Hardly anyone uses the northwest portion.

Seriously? Do you ever visit the NW? I'm having a hard time believing you.

[mersar]

It would have made perfect sense. Hardly anyone uses the northwest portion. When I was working construction, people were basically crying for an easier way to get from the SE to the NE. They either used deerfoot (blah), 52 st SE (blah) or all the way out in Langdon (blah). The SE portion would have eased traffice for the people needing it most.

As Mazrim says, I think you're a bit off.

The 2010 traffic counts are up on Alberta Transportations site (and much improved, there is even a Google Maps interface to let you see 'where' the count is actually at rather then the text description.

And for the sake of this argument, Stoney Trail just west of Beddington Trail had an average annual daily traffic count of 38,301 and an average summer daily traffic count of 41123 at that location (with a pretty even split between east bound and west bound). Compare to the west side of Deerfoot at 25,785/27570 and east of Deerfoot was 16173/18324. So as it stands now the NW is the far more traveled stretch. Unfortuantely there isn't any other data for the NE up.

Compared to city roads, the NW is about the same volume as Bow Trail was in 2008 (the last city counts I can find), and the NE is about the same as centre street.

[Jack Doe]

The same goes for me and any community outside of the ring road. Or south of Glenmore for that matter.

Nice.

I'll just end my meaningless existence now.

[fusili]

Nice.

I'll just end my meaningless existence now.

Different strokes man. It's just not for me. I am sure there are places I would like to live that you wouldn't. Just stating a personal preference.

[Jack Doe]

Different strokes man. It's just not for me. I am sure there are places I would like to live that you wouldn't. Just stating a personal preference.

Fair enough.

[kw5150]

As Mazrim says, I think you're a bit off.

The 2010 traffic counts are up on Alberta Transportations site (and much improved, there is even a Google Maps interface to let you see 'where' the count is actually at rather then the text description.

And for the sake of this argument, Stoney Trail just west of Beddington Trail had an average annual daily traffic count of 38,301 and an average summer daily traffic count of 41123 at that location (with a pretty even split between east bound and west bound). Compare to the west side of Deerfoot at 25,785/27570 and east of Deerfoot was 16173/18324. So as it stands now the NW is the far more traveled stretch. Unfortuantely there isn't any other data for the NE up.

Compared to city roads, the NW is about the same volume as Bow Trail was in 2008 (the last city counts I can find), and the NE is about the same as centre street.

I will wait until I see the SE numbers but I know traffic is a mess down there all the way up to mcknight. Anyway, whatever I dont live in the burbs anyway and all I really focus on is the west LRT. I just noticed that the Ring road was really underutilized so far and it is obviously part of a wasteful future plan.

[Mazrim]

The NW portion of the ring road is valuable part of the network up there, and a huge time saver over using Country Hills Boulvard, which is why it's used so much already. The NE on the other hand sees much less traffic right now...mostly truck traffic from what I've seen personally. That's no fault to the road itself, but rather that it's not needed as badly as the NW was. When the SE portion is finished, you're right, it will be a busy section, just like the NW.

[You Need A Thneed]

The NW portion of the ring road is valuable part of the network up there, and a huge time saver over using Country Hills Boulvard, which is why it's used so much already. The NE on the other hand sees much less traffic right now...mostly truck traffic from what I've seen personally. That's no fault to the road itself, but rather that it's not needed as badly as the NW was. When the SE portion is finished, you're right, it will be a busy section, just like the NW.

Adding the SE section is also going to make the NE section a lot busier, as it becomes an alternative to Deerfoot Trail.

All sections are going to be plenty busy when the SE section opens, IMO.

[suburb]

The same goes for me and any community outside of the ring road. Or south of Glenmore for that matter.

Even with a handle like 'suburb', I'd have to agree with you whole heartedly. Sorry to all the folks down South, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize the sprawl on that end is way worse (in context of location to the core) than it is in the North. Especially the deep South-East!

http://www.remaxcentral.ab.ca/gssi/maps/new/i/city_wide_new2.gif

[Ferreth]

Even with a handle like 'suburb', I'd have to agree with you whole heartedly. Sorry to all the folks down South, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize the sprawl on that end is way worse (in context of location to the core) than it is in the North. Especially the deep South-East!

http://www.remaxcentral.ab.ca/gssi/maps/new/i/city_wide_new2.gif

I got curious about the directional sprawl, so I did some Google measurements using 6th Ave and 3rd St SW as my center point:

SSE 20.2km (On top of new Hospital)
NW 17.7km (12 Mile Coulee Rd and 112 Ave
W 10.0 km (14th Ave / Aspen Cliff Close)
E 10.5 km (On Stoney Tr, straight east as close as I can measure)
NE 14.0 km (first house east of Stoney (Airport Trail interchange)
N 13.8km (1st house SE corner of of Centre and Stoney)

I'd agree that sprawl south is the worst, essentially everything south of 22X is farther away than anything else in town. But the NW is close, for now. South will widen the gap over time. The north surprised me; I always thought it was as far out the south is, but it still has a fair ways to go to get to that point.

[suburb]

I got curious about the directional sprawl, so I did some Google measurements using 6th Ave and 3rd St SW as my center point:

SSE 20.2km (On top of new Hospital)
NW 17.7km (12 Mile Coulee Rd and 112 Ave
W 10.0 km (14th Ave / Aspen Cliff Close)
E 10.5 km (On Stoney Tr, straight east as close as I can measure)
NE 14.0 km (first house east of Stoney (Airport Trail interchange)
N 13.8km (1st house SE corner of of Centre and Stoney)

I'd agree that sprawl south is the worst, essentially everything south of 22X is farther away than anything else in town. But the NW is close, for now. South will widen the gap over time. The north surprised me; I always thought it was as far out the south is, but it still has a fair ways to go to get to that point.

In the NW you've gone to the absolute boundary, whereas you have not done this for the SE.

http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/calgarymap.gif

The other problem with the South sprawl is that it is way beyond the Glenmore reservoir ... so you can't just measure radially for that portion unless people are coming in on hydrofoils.

[kw5150]

Prediction 2011 and beyond: The next big expansion will be the SE and it will form around the new South Hospital.

[Bassic Lab]

I got curious about the directional sprawl, so I did some Google measurements using 6th Ave and 3rd St SW as my center point:

SSE 20.2km (On top of new Hospital)
NW 17.7km (12 Mile Coulee Rd and 112 Ave
W 10.0 km (14th Ave / Aspen Cliff Close)
E 10.5 km (On Stoney Tr, straight east as close as I can measure)
NE 14.0 km (first house east of Stoney (Airport Trail interchange)
N 13.8km (1st house SE corner of of Centre and Stoney)

I'd agree that sprawl south is the worst, essentially everything south of 22X is farther away than anything else in town. But the NW is close, for now. South will widen the gap over time. The north surprised me; I always thought it was as far out the south is, but it still has a fair ways to go to get to that point.

The problem with the NW, and the west for that matter, is that it is sprawling further and further from any kind of real employment nodes. Closer to downtown there is a great deal of activity as the city's main institutional area, with the UofC, SAIT, and Foothills Hospital, but further out there is nothing. The NE and SE are at least near expanding industrial areas. The city's live in the west and work in the east dynamic is problematic enough as it is and development in the far NW only makes it worse.

[Ferreth]

In the NW you've gone to the absolute boundary, whereas you have not done this for the SE.

http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/calgarymap.gif

The other problem with the South sprawl is that it is way beyond the Glenmore reservoir ... so you can't just measure radially for that portion unless people are coming in on hydrofoils.

I measured from the last development I could see on the current Google Maps image. More building has happened since.

In terms of absolute land sprawl, I'm happy with my half-assed measurements. You do have a point about "traffic sprawl". It would be interesting to see the same measures using Google's direction finder - I'd guess the SSW rather than the SSE would win that one for longest commute.

[Jack Doe]

In the NW you've gone to the absolute boundary, whereas you have not done this for the SE.

http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/calgarymap.gif

The other problem with the South sprawl is that it is way beyond the Glenmore reservoir ... so you can't just measure radially for that portion unless people are coming in on hydrofoils.

Keep in mind topography and land ownership. Land ownership west of the city is fragmented and subdivided, thus harder to assemble into a coherent community, as well as more "hilly", making your servicing cost per unit greater.

Land ownership east of the city is generally already held by development corporations in large blocks and on gently sloping terrain that most builders prefer. Their is an ASP in development (Belvedere) for the area between Calgary and Chestermere.

The ASP (Providence) for that bit of Calgary that juts out south of the Tsuu Tina reserve (west of the future 37 St/Sarcee Tr/SWRR) has been held in abeyance for quite some time pending resolution of the SWRR dilemma.

I don't know if anybody has noticed, but Spruce Meadows was recently de-annexed, retroactively effective 1 January 2011. I didn't see any order-in-council regarding the Sirocco lands, but the I think this could be because the scope of what might be annexed to Calgary has increased from the lands at the NE end of the golf course to the entire quarter-section.

Of interest to road geeks, the plans I've seen of a 37 St/Sarcee Tr extension south of 22X connecting to the 2A (Macleod Tr) at Dunbow Rd show it crossing the NE tip of the Sirocco lands.

[Mazrim]

Prediction 2011 and beyond: The next big expansion will be the SE and it will form around the new South Hospital.

Good news...your prediction came true before you even said it! ;)

[5seconds]

New poster, thought I would post and say hello.

I came across this image. It's a 1968 plan showing a future projection for main roads in Calgary (projected to 1986) and thought it was interesting.

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a400/jessesalus/1968-FromCALTS1968-Conceptual1968CalgaryHighwayNetwork.jpg

[mersar]

New poster, thought I would post and say hello.

I came across this image. It's a 1968 plan showing a future projection for main roads in Calgary (projected to 1986) and thought it was interesting.



Wow... can say I'm glad most of it never came to fruition. Especially the inner city stuff.

[5seconds]

Wow... can say I'm glad most of it never came to fruition. Especially the inner city stuff.

I know! the freeway along the river would have changed the entire character of the Downtown.

Interesting that most of the Ring Road is there in spirit if not actually matching what we have now.

[monocle]

I know! the freeway along the river would have changed the entire character of the Downtown.

Interesting that most of the Ring Road is there in spirit if not actually matching what we have now.

While I dig the ring road(s), I dislike the board gamey connect-the-dots layout.

[Mazrim]

Interesting that most of the Ring Road is there in spirit if not actually matching what we have now.

They bought the TUC lands in the 70s, so that would make sense at least.

[Bassic Lab]

Wow... can say I'm glad most of it never came to fruition. Especially the inner city stuff.

The inner city stuff is pretty well the only thing that is worse about those plans. If anything we have more suburban freeways. We half finished the Blackfoot freeway and built Deerfoot in the same vicinity; the expressway portion of Crowchild has been turned into a freeway; Sarcee still exists, minus the Bowness and river crossing elements, as a western ring road and we have another one; a lot of the freeways, like Sarcee, Anderson, much of 14 St, and so on, have been downgraded to expressways but we are essentially a pro-roads council away from reversing that.

Do not get me wrong, I am glad we did not ravage the inner city with the downtown penetrator, the south downtown bypass, the memorial freeway, the 16 Ave freeway, and the 14 St freeway but beyond that we did not move far from the freeway model.

[Mazrim]

Do not get me wrong, I am glad we did not ravage the inner city with the downtown penetrator, the south downtown bypass, the memorial freeway, the 16 Ave freeway, and the 14 St freeway but beyond that we did not move far from the freeway model.

Not move far? Those freeways you listed aren't minor projects. I would call that a step in a completely different direction.

[craner]

Even with a handle like 'suburb', I'd have to agree with you whole heartedly. Sorry to all the folks down South, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize the sprawl on that end is way worse (in context of location to the core) than it is in the North. Especially the deep South-East!

I would think the location of the T'su Tina Reserve in the SW has had an affect on this. There is not as much land to sprawl west in the south and therefore it has gone further south.
Just a thought.

[kw5150]

Here is what would have happened if that freeway system would have came true.....the death of inner city calgray, complete with the destruction of inglewood apparently for a large interchange..........

http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/7789/deathofcalgarycopy.jpg

[lubicon]

Anyone have any idea's of when they might start up construction on NW Stoney around the Crowchild interchange? Other road projects have started up but this one is sitting idle and they were oh so close to getting the next stage finished before winter set in last year. The only sign of activity is CPS out enforcing the construction zone speed limits - again.