[Biff]

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..........



Wow, that is a lot of interchanges. This plan only dates back to 1986. That would have cost a fortune.

[kw5150]

Wow, that is a lot of interchanges. This plan only dates back to 1986. That would have cost a fortune.

Ya, its a good thing that the LRT was built a couple years later or else who knows........

[5seconds]

Wow, that is a lot of interchanges. This plan only dates back to 1986. That would have cost a fortune.

It's from 1968, projected forward to show what they thought Calgary would look like in 1986.

[kw5150]

It's from 1968, projected forward to show what they thought Calgary would look like in 1986.

It still blows exhaust either way.......

[5seconds]

It still blows exhaust either way.......

Yup. The river pathway and Memorial Freeways would have been such a huge mistake

[Mazrim]

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.

Probably waiting for bridge construction to finish. The rest is easy.

On that note, Nose Hill will be going out for tender probably in the next 3-4 months.

[Oliver Klozov]

Probably waiting for bridge construction to finish.

What's left to finish bridge-wise? :shrug:

[MalcolmTucker]

^
Not having the design right in front of me, isn't it still missing the two 'left turn' bridges from Stoney onto Crowchild?

[mersar]

^
Not having the design right in front of me, isn't it still missing the two 'left turn' bridges from Stoney onto Crowchild?

All bridge structures are completed (including both LRT bridges), all thats left to do is to build the ramp that goes under the east-most bridges and loops around to go from NB Stoney to WB Crowchild, build the ramp from EB Crowchild to NB Stoney and move the NB lanes of Stoney under their side of the main bridges instead of sharing the SB side. So mostly fairly simple stuff left, final earth moving, grading, and paving essentially.

[Mazrim]

Ah, I wasn't aware where they stood. Guess they've been waiting for the spring thaw?

[freeweed]

Crowchild/Stoney work resumed this morning. They've repainted some of the lines on Crowchild overnight, about freaking time. The weaving on the eastbound lanes was horrible at times.

Several workers and vehicles set up this morning. As drivers have only seen CPS radar traps there for the past several months, everyone was slowing to 50 thinking it was yet another trap. :haha: Normally morning traffic through here hits 80.

[Seadood]

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.

Looks like their first priority will be to get the NB->WB ramp completed. Then there is a big pile of dirt to be reomved before the EB->NB ramp is constructed. Looks pretty mushy out there.

[kap384]

Looks like their first priority will be to get the NB->WB ramp completed. Then there is a big pile of dirt to be reomved before the EB->NB ramp is constructed. Looks pretty mushy out there.



Yep, that's the order it needs to go. NB to WB needs to be open to traffic to eliminate the current left turn onto Crowchild ramp. With that ramp removed, the EB to NB ramp can proceed.

[mersar]

Piles being installed at Stoney and 22X:
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5186/5663633976_20898374cb_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/33872918@N06/5663633976/)
Stoney Trail and Highway 22X (http://www.flickr.com/photos/33872918@N06/5663633976/) by Jason R. Reid (http://www.flickr.com/people/33872918@N06/), on Flickr

Looking north at Stoney Trail from 114th Ave SE
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5101/5663080335_d514a49ed0_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/33872918@N06/5663080335/)
2011-04-27_17-52-38_128_Calgary (http://www.flickr.com/photos/33872918@N06/5663080335/) by Jason R. Reid (http://www.flickr.com/people/33872918@N06/), on Flickr

[tmjr]

Some local opposition to the current Nose Hill/Stoney interchange design...

http://stoneynosehill.wikispaces.com/

Its also in the news:
Some people who live in northwest Calgary are opposed to a plan for a major roadway upgrade near their homes.

The province wants to build an interchange over Stoney Trail along Nose Hill Drive N.W., eliminating a set of lights at an existing intersection.

But the project will have a negative impact on the neighbourhoods of Scenic Acres and Tuscany, said Dave Wright, who heads a local citizens' group.http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/story/2011/05/09/calgary-interchange-stoney-northwest.html

[mersar]

Yep. They support an underpass rather then overpass, except then that will force destroying/relocating the wildlife underpass, all while they scream save the wildlife. And I highly doubt that building the bridge will knock 20% of the value off the houses on the ridge as some realtor claimed to them.

[Mazrim]

Wow, that's hilarious. 20% Devaluation? Absurd. Must be a realtor that lives in the area that said that.

Putting Stoney over Nose Hill would create MORE sound issues than the current configuration. An underpass does not fix any "environmental" (I use brackets because they have one problem and it isn't one even after construction is finished) problems they have with it. They also have some idea about being able to work the detour so the road doesn't shift North...yeah, at a greatly increased cost.

I always laugh when people who buy houses on the edge of the TUC complain about it being put to its planned use.

EDIT: I misread the Stoney over Nose Hill portion. Apparently they just want to dig under the existing grade for Nose Hill....lol. Even more expensive!

[lubicon]

I listened to the interview and the guy does have some valid points although it't probably too late to do anything about it. In summary, 3 of his major points were:

1. by shifting Nose Hill Drive to the north AND building it over top of Stoney it will in effect raise the road about 20m higher than it currently is (his words). He is concerned about the effect of that on the houses in Scenic Acres that face onto Stoney.

2. he claims that the only real consultation the Province did with the communities was back in 2003 and the project scope and design has changed considerably since then.

3. Tuscany and Scenic Acres residents will not be able to access SB Stoney until south of Nose Hill drive due to weave lane issues. This actually makes SB travel on Stoney even worse than it currently is without the interchange.

On his 3rd point I agree wholeheartedly. As a Tuscany resident I have keenly awaited the completion of Stoney as I thought it would improve my travels around the City. Instead it has steadily made things worse with all the re-jigging of the access roads.

[freeweed]

1. by shifting Nose Hill Drive to the north AND building it over top of Stoney it will in effect raise the road about 20m higher than it currently is (his words). He is concerned about the effect of that on the houses in Scenic Acres that face onto Stoney.

Um, welcome to building your house immediately next to a TUC? How can anyone whine this with a straight face? The very first thought in my head when I saw Stoney Trail in 2003 was "big mother freeway going in eventually". Besides, NHD will be 20m higher? Who cares? It's a minor collector road at best.

2. he claims that the only real consultation the Province did with the communities was back in 2003 and the project scope and design has changed considerably since then.

This constant prattle about the need for continual consultation is getting tiresome. The TUC was always intended to house a freeway and it's freaking obvious that if you build next to it, SOME DAY A FREEWAY WILL BE THERE. Does the city/province bear responsibility to ensure it's a freeway that serves the million+ people in Calgary, or should we instead worry about 20 people who bought specifically where they are because they got a great mountain view?

3. Tuscany and Scenic Acres residents will not be able to access SB Stoney until south of Nose Hill drive due to weave lane issues. This actually makes SB travel on Stoney even worse than it currently is without the interchange.

At this point I'm of the opinion that the only sure way to fix that issue is to nuke both neighbourhoods from orbit and start all over. It's one massive clusterhump that I saw coming years ago and it was the primary reason we stopped looking in Tuscany. Of course I traded it for the ridiculousness of the entrance to Royal Oak, but at least that's not freeway access. :P

[Mazrim]

Does the city/province bear responsibility to ensure it's a freeway that serves the million+ people in Calgary, or should we instead worry about 20 people who bought specifically where they are because they got a great mountain view?

It's funny because I went around and asked some people about this, and was told it's about 15 people who are making the fuss. You were right on! :haha:

[freeweed]

It's funny because I went around and asked some people about this, and was told it's about 15 people who are making the fuss. You were right on! :haha:

I just guesstimated the number of houses that would directly face Stoney. :D

What's REALLY funny is that the same type of person who would a) pay extra to have a mountain view and b) complain about progress destroying their property values is generally the exact same type of person who bitches and moans about "special interest groups".

The ironing is delicious.

[fusili]

It reminds me of how a lot of people complain about things that they should fully expect to happen, or are caused by them themselves (wait, is that how I am supposed to word that?). Such as people who live far away from the city and complain about the commute (what did you expect), people who move out to the country and then complain about others doing the exact same thing (residents of Rocky View are great for this), people who go to stores at a busy time (Christmas Eve, Boxing Day) and complain about the line ups (wait, aren't they in the line ups???) or people who move next to somewhere designated as a freeway and complain when it gets built.

My pet peeve (when I worked in the restaurant industry) was people who would go to the restaurant on a busy Friday or Saturday and complain about the wait. If you don't want to wait, come on Monday at 10:00, otherwise deal with it.

[DizzyEdge]

^^^

http://www.funnypictureblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/deal-with-it.gif

[5seconds]

I get frustrated when people don't recognize that there is no TUC for the SW portion of the Ring Road.

There is the assumption that Lakeview and Glamorgan residents boarder a TUC, and they don't understand why there are complaints.

[Mazrim]

My pet peeve (when I worked in the restaurant industry) was people who would go to the restaurant on a busy Friday or Saturday and complain about the wait. If you don't want to wait, come on Monday at 10:00, otherwise deal with it.

This happens almost every time at Cora's on a Sunday morning. What the hell were they expecting?

[fusili]

This happens almost every time at Cora's on a Sunday morning. What the hell were they expecting?

Cora's used to be awesome in Bow Valley Square until people discovered it. There was never, ever a line up on Sunday. But that is every breakfast place in this city on a Saturday or Sunday morning. My girlfriend and I go every weekend and every weekend there is a line no matter where you go: Red's, Purple Perk, Galaxy, Over Easy, Cora's, Avenue Diner (well, when it still was operating). We just accept it as a fact of life. I won't reveal the best place which you could always find a seat, because then it would ruin it for us.

[mersar]

I'm trying to figure out where they are getting the 20m (65 feet) higher from.

If we assume 5m clearance (and stoney stays at the current grade), and say 10 feet for the girders and bridge deck, we're still only 30 feet higher. Not 65. Unfortunately I don't see any cross sections in the documents posted on AB Transportations web site.

[freeweed]

^^^

http://www.funnypictureblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/deal-with-it.gif

OT, but where the hell did this retarded sunglasses-falling-onto-face thing come from? Canucks fans have infested forums with these idiotic pictures and it may be one of the stupidest Internet memes of all time. It doesn't even make any sense.

Your dog at least is minorly cute and pixely.

[Mazrim]

I won't reveal the best place which you could always find a seat, because then it would ruin it for us.

PM me...we're big sunday brunchers and would love more places that aren't mad houses. I promise I won't tell anyone else. :)

I'm trying to figure out where they are getting the 20m (65 feet) higher from.

If we assume 5m clearance (and stoney stays at the current grade), and say 10 feet for the girders and bridge deck, we're still only 30 feet higher. Not 65. Unfortunately I don't see any cross sections in the documents posted on AB Transportations web site.

The website showing their design concerns says 10-12m height difference. I think they have trees higher than that around there.

OT, but where the hell did this retarded sunglasses-falling-onto-face thing come from? Canucks fans have infested forums with these idiotic pictures and it may be one of the stupidest Internet memes of all time. It doesn't even make any sense.

Your dog at least is minorly cute and pixely.

I'm pretty sure it started on Something Awful. I imagine Bigtime would know better than me. That dog was the one I saw first.

I just ignore everything canucks fans do anyway.

[lubicon]

I'm trying to figure out where they are getting the 20m (65 feet) higher from.

If we assume 5m clearance (and stoney stays at the current grade), and say 10 feet for the girders and bridge deck, we're still only 30 feet higher. Not 65. Unfortunately I don't see any cross sections in the documents posted on AB Transportations web site.

I can't vouch for the aqccuracy of the numbers (20m), but it had to do with the fact that the alignment of Nose Hill Drive itself will be shifted to the north somewhat. That means up hill somewhat from where it currently is. That accouts for the extra height (actually elevation) compared to what it is now. Whether it is really 20m, I really don't know but it will be at least somewhat higher than the numbers you calculated - which are otherwise pretty well correct.

[DizzyEdge]

OT, but where the hell did this retarded sunglasses-falling-onto-face thing come from? Canucks fans have infested forums with these idiotic pictures and it may be one of the stupidest Internet memes of all time. It doesn't even make any sense.

Your dog at least is minorly cute and pixely.

I think that is the original.

[5seconds]

I have been going back and reading a little bit of this thread, and I wanted to throw some things into the discussion about the SWRR, maybe to clear up a few misconceptions, maybe just to start some debate. (I'll just post the first, and go from there!)

There are a lot of complaints about the lack of planning on the part of the City (or Province) in building Lakeview right up to the edge of the city limits. This isn't really the case, as 37th street was not the edge of the city in the 1960s, when Lakeview was built. The military first leased out the land on the reserve directly west of Lakeview in 1901, and 'purchased' it in 1952. This was the Harvey Barracks. In every plan that was created subsequently (both in roads and communities), the Ring Road was meant to cut south from Sarcee, through Canadian Forces land, and then curve onto the 37th street alignment south of the weaselhead, connecting to 90th. In fact, on some of the plans from the 1960s and 1970s, the Harvey Barracks is considered, and labeled, as within the City of Calgary city limits.

This is why a ROW was set aside south of the reservoir, but not north. This also dismisses the notion of "Well, the residents of Lakeview always knew it was going up 37th street, so they can't complain now". The road was NEVER going up 37th street north of the reservoir.

The map below is a 1977 engineering study for the Ring Road. It shows 3 distinct ares of the reserve: "Camp Sarcee Military Reserve" which is the land 'owned' by the military, "Military Lease Area" which is further lands leased by the military, and the "Sarcee Indian Reserve No. 145" which is the remainder of the land. At the top left, you can also make out the City Limits marking, showing the Harvey Barracks within the City Limits at that time (just above the letter 'D').

(I refer to the Military land as being 'purchased' or 'owned by' in quotes because the deal was of course nullified in the 1990s, and the land returned to the Band within the past 10-15 years. However, at the time of the planning of this part of the city, the land was NOT a reserve.)

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a400/jessesalus/AllPossibleAlignmentsFrom1977SarceeTrailSouthExtension.jpg

And a close-up of the weaselhead

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a400/jessesalus/1977SarceeTrailSouthExtensionFigureB-2002.jpg

[freeweed]

Very interesting and something I'm sure almost no one is aware of.

The blame still goes back to the city/province planners then. Why give the land back when you know full well that a road is going to be built on it? And if the original land lease assumed the land was going to back eventually, WHY PLAN A ROAD THERE?

Or is this one of those cases where the land return was completely unexpected, because it was Ottawa doing another apology land grant?

Either way, as someone who lives pretty much right next to the Ring Road - Lakeview residents are insane if they fight it, in my opinion. Having a freeway right next door kicks all sorts of ass.

[5seconds]

Very interesting and something I'm sure almost no one is aware of.

The blame still goes back to the city/province planners then. Why give the land back when you know full well that a road is going to be built on it? And if the original land lease assumed the land was going to back eventually, WHY PLAN A ROAD THERE?

Or is this one of those cases where the land return was completely unexpected, because it was Ottawa doing another apology land grant?

Either way, as someone who lives pretty much right next to the Ring Road - Lakeview residents are insane if they fight it, in my opinion. Having a freeway right next door kicks all sorts of ass.

It was a court mandated return. The purchase was made in violation of the Treaty rules (I believe the military leased the land, then bought it from the government, and the Band got nothing.)

How close are you to the road itself, and to the access? In Lakeview, the access may be close, but Lakeview is already well connected north of the reservoir (Crowchild, Glenmore, Sarcee etc). However, some houses are likely to be within feet, maybe a few dozen, of the road, which I think will not kick ass. There just isn't the right-of-way to give the kind of separation that other parts of the ring road has.

Besides, I totally understand people who are totally fine with living beside any kind of infrastructure, and in the case of the Ring Road, the TUC was in place long before anyone bought a house beside it, so the decision was (hopefully!) understood. What we are talking about is people who never even had this on their radar being lumped with it. If you like living next to it, that's fantastic, more power to you, but it's totally understandable that not everyone thinks this way, especially if they never made the same choice you did.

[freeweed]

How close are you to the road itself, and to the access? In Lakeview, the access may be close, but Lakeview is already well connected north of the reservoir (Crowchild, Glenmore, Sarcee etc). However, some houses are likely to be within feet, maybe a few dozen, of the road, which I think will not kick ass. There just isn't the right-of-way to give the kind of separation that other parts of the ring road has.

Probably not as close as Lakeview residents could end up being, I'll give you that. However, those roads you listed are far from freeways. I used to live very close to Crowchild, and while it was handy as all hell, it was nothing compared to a full-on, controlled-access, 100km/h freeway. Heck, you couldn't pay me to travel on Glenmore on a regular basis. Even with all the improvements it's still a jam-packed dangerous weave lot most of the time, and hardly ever gets up to speed except late at night.

Now, some folks don't give 2 shits about convenient road access, but that's their own prerogative. :D

[5seconds]

Probably not as close as Lakeview residents could end up being, I'll give you that. However, those roads you listed are far from freeways. I used to live very close to Crowchild, and while it was handy as all hell, it was nothing compared to a full-on, controlled-access, 100km/h freeway. Heck, you couldn't pay me to travel on Glenmore on a regular basis. Even with all the improvements it's still a jam-packed dangerous weave lot most of the time, and hardly ever gets up to speed except late at night.

A road is only as relevant as the places it will take you to! In terms of it being a benefit to the residents of Lakeview (myself included, if you haven't guessed!) I would think it has limited relevance and appeal. Besides, if the negatives outweigh the positives, then the point is moot, at least to them.

Now, some folks don't give 2 shits about convenient road access, but that's their own prerogative. :D

Which is the beauty of the way Calgary usually works. There are lots of properties that have great access and are close to major roads, and there is plenty of notice about TUCs so people won't be surprised when this kind of thing gets built. There are also lots of properties that are near parks and are quiet, and the trade off of more limited access is one worth making. It's when the latter unexpectedly turns into the former that it becomes a problem.

[5seconds]

So there are a few 'NIMBY' comments that I have read, (though, mercifully, less than in the Calgary Herald or Calgary Sun comment sections!) and I wanted to explore a different perspective on that.

NIMBY is often associated with a hypocritical mindset: The recognition that something is needed, but trying to push it on someone else, to protect themselves and their 'backyard'.

But NIMBY does not inherently state a recognition of a need. In the case of the SW Ring Road, there are 2 common, but different, themes. On one hand, you have people (some of whom have been living in their houses for over 40 years) who don't want their homes bulldozed, and on the other, you have people who don't live in the area, but simply want the park and water supply protected (I will leave out the cost/tax factor, which has the potential to affect everyone)

In both of these cases, the people who are against the road in that area are not being hypocritical, they simply believe that the cost outweighs the benefit. It's not a matter of wanting the road, but wanting it somewhere else; it's a matter of thinking that there are better solutions that does not require this kind of impact (socially or environmentally). Once the charges of hypocrisy are out of the way, the validity of the arguments can be weighed with a little more clarity.

(To be clear, there are lots of residents that want to save their houses, and want the road to be built on the Tsuu Tina land. I don't think this is hypocritical, as there will be no houses taken out on that alignment)

NIMBY is the very basis of city planning across the continent, even the world. There is a reason that we don't have meat-packing plants popping up in suburban residential neighbourhoods, and distribution centres are not next to day-care centres. We all recognize a reason to have a certain degree of separation and allocation of space to certain uses, and thus a pre-emptive NIMBY attitude has been set in Law, to a greater or lesser degree across the world.

The kind of NIMBY we are talking about here is when land that has previously been set for one use is being changed into another use, and the impacts that has on the local residents and the area (city) as a whole. In this respect, NIMBY is just another word for local democracy. That citizens are not sitting idly by, waiting for a government department to dictate terms to a local community is frankly the kind of democracy that I want to live in. Those protests may not be successful, and the road may still go through, but the act of protesting, and engaging with all levels of government means that potential alternatives will at least be brought forward, and that a better plan might still be found.

Many people, here and elsewhere use NIMBY as a pejorative, but as long as you are not just wanting to demolish someone else's house instead of your own, it is just another democratic tool that citizens have at their disposal.

And this all leads to the 1963 Parkway Infrastructure project, that shows how citizen action to preserve current and future park area is so important and valued in this city. (More soon! Sorry)

[Socguy]

It's good information regarding the original alignments, however, it doesn't really change the reality of the situation today: the road is desperately needed and will be more-so in the future. It`s going to be built. But make no mistake, how this unfolds is going to be messy.

While everyone agrees that the best alignment is through the reserve, the clock has run out on that option. It's off the table unless the Band comes forward with an ironclad, legally binding agreement with the Provence and they do it now. As it stands now, pushing for further negotiations is simply a stalling tactic.

From an environmental standpoint: How much of an effect will this project have on the weaselhead? My answer is that this entirely depends on how the project is designed. A simple blacktop surface blowing through the natural area would be devastating, whereas tunnels or large bridge structures much less. As for the City's water supply? I don't think it makes a difference where this road goes. Is it really that much of a difference if we route these cars over the weaselhead or force them through Glenmore?

In both cases I think critics of the project are out of time and their best option now is to attempt to influence the project and limit its scope instead of outright opposition. For example, I heard a suggestion once that the SW portion be scaled back to an 80km Crowchild style road instead of a full speed 100km separated highway. This should lessen the footprint of this road and reduce the need to bulldoze houses. If, after this road is built, the Provence decides that it really needs the full scale thing then the Provence can open new negotiations with the band for enough land to expand the road.

[5seconds]

It's good information regarding the original alignments, however, it doesn't really change the reality of the situation today: the road is desperately needed and will be more-so in the future. It`s going to be built. But make no mistake, how this unfolds is going to be messy.

While everyone agrees that the best alignment is through the reserve, the clock has run out on that option. It's off the table unless the Band comes forward with an ironclad, legally binding agreement with the Provence and they do it now. As it stands now, pushing for further negotiations is simply a stalling tactic.

From an environmental standpoint: How much of an effect will this project have on the weaselhead? My answer is that this entirely depends on how the project is designed. A simple blacktop surface blowing through the natural area would be devastating, whereas tunnels or large bridge structures much less. As for the City's water supply? I don't think it makes a difference where this road goes. Is it really that much of a difference if we route these cars over the weaselhead or force them through Glenmore?

In both cases I think critics of the project are out of time and their best option now is to attempt to influence the project and limit its scope instead of outright opposition. For example, I heard a suggestion once that the SW portion be scaled back to an 80km Crowchild style road instead of a full speed 100km separated highway. This should lessen the footprint of this road and reduce the need to bulldoze houses. If, after this road is built, the Provence decides that it really needs the full scale thing then the Provence can open new negotiations with the band for enough land to expand the road.

In some ways I agree with you (though interesting, the origins of the lack of TUC in the SW is, litterally, in the past), except about the Tsuu Tina. The last public announcement by the band leadership is that (now that they see that the province is committed to a Plan B) they are willing to talk. (Someone earlier mentioned the Sturgeon Lake reserve, and a similar situation there)

The province is being smart in 2 ways:
1) They are not altering their timetable. If the Tsuu Tina want to talk, the province is happy to talk, but not indefinately. At least there will be a clear answer, one way or another, and quite soon too. (I heard September is the cut-off)

2) The province has said that the route and the compensation is not up for re-negotiation. They have allowed for certain details to be reworded. This is the best thing for these talks, as the band have publicly stated that the real sticking point on the contract was the fact that the land exchange was not 'set in stone' and that the province had the opportunity to pay cash rather than swap land. If the contract was re-written to guarantee the land, I think the deal will go through.

So the commitment by the province to pushing forward with a Plan B might be genuine, or it may be a bluff to get the band back to the table, but the way they are proceeding forces the band to make a decision or be shut out of the deal for ever.

Saying all of that, however, is that the necessity in this situation is NOT building a road, it's about moving people. (I know there is lots of talk about moving products and goods, and that those things are not served by transit etc. but with the SW being entirely residential, and out-of-town connections being a legitimate alternative to a ring road, I think the majority of the Ring Road use will be by private individuals)

I think that we can have better ideas about moving people, and with the money involved, that could be better spent on implementing solutions that will benefit more people, and do less harm to the area.

[5seconds]

In 1963, the City of Calgary and the Canadian Pacific Railway created an infrastructure plan that would have seen the CPR tracks moved from their current location between 9th and 10th ave, to the river-front along downtown. This was called the Parkway project.

In addition to the at-grade train tracks, there was to be an 8-lane freeway that followed this line, through Inglewood, Fort Calgary, East Village, Chinatown, Eau Claire and out west. This of course would have meant that the entire river-front park and path system would never have happened, and that Prince's Island would have been cut off. In addition, Memorial was also slated to be turned into a freeway along it's entire run, further impacting the City and the river.

The rational behind the move was that there is over 100 acres of land downtown that could be developed and taxed (The estimated $35m. price tag would have been offset by the $95m. raised over the next 20 years on the property tax), and the integrating of Downtown with the Beltline was beneficial to everyone who worked there. As well, the promise of a freeway appealed to the business community, the developers, the city etc.

That land had already been designated to be developed into parks and paths, but that was ignored, and the deal pushed ahead. It was only the actions of a citizens group (the Local Council of Women) and 1 councillor, Jack Leslie who later went on to become Mayor, that fought it, made it an issue, and eventually secured the area for the park and pathways we currently know and use.

In both cases I think critics of the project are out of time and their best option now is to attempt to influence the project and limit its scope instead of outright opposition. For example, I heard a suggestion once that the SW portion be scaled back to an 80km Crowchild style road instead of a full speed 100km separated highway. This should lessen the footprint of this road and reduce the need to bulldoze houses. If, after this road is built, the Provence decides that it really needs the full scale thing then the Provence can open new negotiations with the band for enough land to expand the road.

The people who fought the Parkway could well have been dismissed as NIMBYs, and that the CPR realignment and freeway were 'totally necessary' and that they were standing in the way of progress that absolutely HAD to be put in place. The opponents could have pushed for a raised rail system, or a 80km/h smaller roadway, but they didn't: they opted to fight it entirely, and the citizens of Calgary enjoy their efforts every day.

To me, the parallels are so clear between the SWRR and the Parkway of 1963 that we ignore the lessons at out peril.

Watch the City of Calgary's video about Jack Leslie here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSY994hc_14

And read more about the plan and the opposition from the Council of Women here:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=Me0tTT5XJfkC&pg=PA178&lpg=PA178&dq=calgary+parkway+cpr+freeway&source=bl&ots=BjgxtoZFtn&sig=q1__WIFHNYUgD85wm0rBoJAOdjU&hl=en&ei=oXa4Te_TNrHUiAKk8pwc&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CFMQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q&f=false

(The Video is a couple of minutes, and well worth the watch, and the link has a few pages about the Parkway, including a few interesting images of how at one time the city wanted a dual-ring system DOWNTOWN with some kind of mega-parking structures and no local roads...? Something like that. The Parkway section is only a couple of pages, so again, worth the read.)

[5seconds]

An image of the Parkway plan ca. 1963

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a400/jessesalus/Parkway1963map.jpg

[jsbertram]

Even though both of these proposals were defeated, some parts were actually built.

Memorial Drive (without the Edmonton trail interchange & loops)
14th St & 9th Ave interchange & loops
7th Ave transit mall
8th Ave pedestrian mall
Palliser Square


Some of these were going to happen whether the full proposals went forward or not, and others were already in place or under construction & folded into the larger proposals.

[freeweed]

Interesting how we used to basically piss on our waterways in this country (and continent, and planet). So many places thought that putting complete garbage next to rivers and lakes was the way to go. I guess this made sense seeing as most riverbanks and lakefronts were almost destroyed after the industrial revolution and the world wars, but still... it's hard to believe it took so many decades for people to wake up.

I think this plan being defeated may be the single biggest reason Calgary has reclaimed its rivers so successfully, compared to other cities. We didn't have anywhere near the cleanup job.

[UofC.engineer]

Imagine if this plan had gone through!!! Who knows what would have happened?

Purhaps during the 80/90's public outcry would have made the City and CPR to reroute the whole system away from the river and completely bypass Calgary. Then we would be left with bike paths on top of the old railway beside the river and an excellent DT Beltline transition area.

In Paris, they replaced an elevated industrial revolution railway line with a park/pathway, it looks pretty ballin'.


Or maybe the opposite would have occured and we would still have the river rail system today,yuck :yuck:

[5seconds]

Interesting how we used to basically piss on our waterways in this country (and continent, and planet). So many places thought that putting complete garbage next to rivers and lakes was the way to go. I guess this made sense seeing as most riverbanks and lakefronts were almost destroyed after the industrial revolution and the world wars, but still... it's hard to believe it took so many decades for people to wake up.

I think this plan being defeated may be the single biggest reason Calgary has reclaimed its rivers so successfully, compared to other cities. We didn't have anywhere near the cleanup job.

I couldn't agree more. I didn't realise this before, but Prince's Island was an industrial lumber storage yard for the Eau Claire Lumber company until the 1950s.

For an excellent read about the river parks and the state of the river (junkyard, industrial use etc) there is paper available here:

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/How+did+Calgary+get+its+river+parks%3F-a0137764881

It's long, but well worth the read.

Even though both of these proposals were defeated, some parts were actually built.

Memorial Drive (without the Edmonton trail interchange & loops)
14th St & 9th Ave interchange & loops
7th Ave transit mall
8th Ave pedestrian mall
Palliser Square


Although some of these were going to happen whether the full proposals went forward or not, and others were already in place or under construction & folded into the larger proposals.

Luckily, Memorial Drive didn't happen as planned. The plans in the 1960s called for Memorial to be a freeway as well, so even the north bank of the river would have been cut off from the communities around there.

[polishavenger]

It makes sense that waterways were treated as D class real estate. Before technological improvments, rivers and lakes functioned as both transportation routes, and sewage disposal. Now that we dont dump all of our garbage into rivers and lakes, and have shifted some industrial transport to rail, road and air, waterfronts are becoming more desirable and accessible for remediation.

A good example is the Chicago river and the Thames. Both functioned as trash dumps to the point where the rivers stank so bad it forced people to change their behaviour. London developed sewer systems, and in Chicago they reversed the flow of the river so it wouldnt contaminate their drinking water supply.

[freeweed]

Wow, thanks for the link. That's one of the cooler things posted to SSP in recent memory. You sure do get a sense of how influential the CPR still was as recently as the 1960s. All of my life they've just been a pale shadow of their former self. What's amazing is that what saved the riverbanks is money. That's it. If not for the cost, the CPR tracks would have been routed there and surely a freeway shortly after - why not, if you've already destroyed the river? The park concept came after the tracks didn't move. It's really too bad they couldn't have routed them completely around the city (which would put them where, maybe 1/3 of the way into the suburbs these days? :haha: ).

Choice quote, this really illustrates the thinking of the time. Today we think entirely differently:

"The redevelopment of the river bank will make attractive what is now a wasteland and partly a commercial slum." He recommended that Calgarians see the riverbank for themselves: "You can't see it from the car, but take a short walk westward along the dyke starting from the slaughterhouse at 6th Street East." Development would make the riverbank more attractive, he claimed; the tracks would be clean and neat, the curve beautifully landscaped, running without sidings, yards, or industries through trees and shrubbery under pedestrian and motor bridges. The track would run along the protective dike system, an area unsuited to parkland on account of "the deep, swift running current." Sykes insisted, "Parents concerned for their children's safety never let their children play in this area."

To be fair, if in fact it was JUST the tracks and not the sidings and yard we see today - maybe it wouldn't have been as bad. The tracks as they leave the city through Bowness have been fairly well incorporated into the natural environment and are in fact "clean and neat". But still...

[5seconds]

A few more quotes:

On the subject of corridor relocation the Van Ginkel report concluded emphatically that the trade-off of four hectares of riverbank "which is at present worthless" for more than forty hectares of prime land in the city core was amply justifiable: "The south bank of the river is not used at present. Indeed, this whole stretch along the river is completely lost to the community and in many instances is a disgrace. The new parkway will give the river back to the city. Landscaping should be capable of handling this area in such a way that the railway tracks are not unsightly." (24)

If a feasible alternative route could be found, Calgarians for Progress insisted they too would preserve the riverbank, "even though the odds are heavily against it ever becoming an area of public enjoyment in the form envisaged by some."

Turning the riverfront into a green strip would cost a prohibitive $4 million. In large measure that objective could be obtained for free as a consequence of this larger development. "River bank beautification is, in fact, a key feature of the City-CP Project," their literature claimed. The railway would be screened with landscaping, as would the parkway. "The Bow River South Bank would, under the project, be far more attractive than today." (30)

[craner]

Soooo - anyone know when the province is due to report back on the public input they received on the 5 options proposed for the SWRR - I'm thinking June ?

[5seconds]

Soooo - anyone know when the province is due to report back on the public input they received on the 5 options proposed for the SWRR - I'm thinking June ?

My understanding is that province has stated June will be their next announcement. I think they will not only have a route chosen (who wants to place a bet on option 4 being picked?) but an actual alignment should be announced.

I don't have an evidence of this though, but I'm sure they said it at the open house. I just wrote to the Project Manager on the SWRR to ask. I'll post his reply.

[5seconds]

If anyone is interested in a VERY detailed PDF presentation by the contractor who built the temporary 37th street/Glenmore interchange, here is a link:

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=15&ved=0CC0QFjAEOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.schulich.ucalgary.ca%2FCivil%2Fcsce_calgary%2F2011%2FG37_Presentation_CSCE.pdf&ei=CHvWTZ6FNo7WtQPXj5iyBw&usg=AFQjCNF3hGUNmw3fK5eDzCfhgqaats1AnQ

It details the entire project, from brief, to multiple design options and revisions, photographs of the build, and before and after. A really interesting insight into the process. It does not appear to be a public document.

[craner]

^Very interesting, nice find - thanks for posting.

[Wentworth]

If anyone is interested in a VERY detailed PDF presentation by the contractor who built the temporary 37th street/Glenmore interchange, here is a link:

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=15&ved=0CC0QFjAEOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.schulich.ucalgary.ca%2FCivil%2Fcsce_calgary%2F2011%2FG37_Presentation_CSCE.pdf&ei=CHvWTZ6FNo7WtQPXj5iyBw&usg=AFQjCNF3hGUNmw3fK5eDzCfhgqaats1AnQ

It details the entire project, from brief, to multiple design options and revisions, photographs of the build, and before and after. A really interesting insight into the process. It does not appear to be a public document.


Sadly, as the situation at the Sarcee and 69th Street intersections degrades on a daily basis, this project may end up not delivering as much benefit as hoped. I'm hitting slow traffic as far back as the resevoire again, just like I used to. On Friday, we almost reached the point of criticality where the backlog from the light at 69th street stretched all the way back to Sarcee, and I believe some cars were not able to pass through the intersection at Sarcee (westbound) even though the light was green.

Really, they need to twin the road up to 69th St., but it doesn't help that people still try to merge too soon after the turn (this is a dual turn intersection) which means that the extra turn lane isn't utilized efficiently. In addition to extending the merge lane as much as possible, they should also repaint the first few hundred meters of the lanes as a solid line and post "no merging next X m" signs.

[MalcolmTucker]

The province has announced the project to twin Highway 8 (http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/projects/calgary.aspx) already. The 101st to Glenmore is still subject to the SW Ring Road Study. The project isn't on the three year funding list, but I wouldn't be surprised for it to be placed on it as soon as costs are nailed down.

Highway 8 (http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/projects/assets/Area_7_Calgary_Area/Hwy_8/HWY_8_Twinning_Poster_Boards_April_2011v1_6_reduced[1].pdf)


Long term planning study was undertaken to determine the ultimate twinning and access management requirements.
Long term planning study was undertaken to determine the ultimate interchange requirements at 149 Street.
Design is underway for the twinning of 16.5 kms of Highway 8 from Highway 22 to 101 Street SW at the Calgary City Limit.

[craner]

^Whoo Hoo - Awesome. :banana:

[5seconds]

The province has announced the project to twin Highway 8 (http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/projects/calgary.aspx) already. The 101st to Glenmore is still subject to the SW Ring Road Study. The project isn't on the three year funding list, but I wouldn't be surprised for it to be placed on it as soon as costs are nailed down.

Unfortunately that's the section least needing of twinning. Whatever is announced in June, and decided in September for the ring road, I hope they can get on with some of the other much-needed infrastructure that is simply on hold because of the SWRR.

[5seconds]

On that train of though, I wonder how much of the current congestion in the SW has been created by the lack of infrastructure investment, things that are on hold because of the indecision with the SWRR. It's almost like the Province has created the congestion it seeks to relieve by not going ahead with smaller measures, instead relying on one large measure.

[5seconds]

Just got this back from the head of SWRR Planning, Alex Broda

We are still working to answer the questions that came out of the workshop and first set of open houses. At this time it does not appear that we can meet the timelines required to have another workshop and series of open houses prior to the summer break. There should be an annoncement prior to the end to this month as to when we will be able to get back with more info.

Not sure exactly what that means, except to wait for the announcement in the next week?

[Ferreth]

On that train of though, I wonder how much of the current congestion in the SW has been created by the lack of infrastructure investment, things that are on hold because of the indecision with the SWRR. It's almost like the Province has created the congestion it seeks to relieve by not going ahead with smaller measures, instead relying on one large measure.

Based on some actual comments I've heard, changes in spending plans and speculation, I'd say Glenmore west of Crowchild, Sarcee, and 14th St. upgrades have been delayed or built later than originally planned due to uncertainty about the SWRR. Even east of Crowchild, I remember there being scenarios of how many lanes to be built for the Glenmore expansion, based on if there was a SWRR and a 50th Ave connector.

[5seconds]

I know that when a property is needed for a government project, they can expropriate your land and pay compensation, but does anyone know about compensation for land owners that are not expropriated, but are still affected by a new road (for instance)?

So, if I have a house that is going to be 30 feet from a new 8-lane highway, and my property title has no caveats on it saying that a road might one day get built there, does the government compensate for a loss of property value?

Someone once said that they do have to pay something, but I can't find anything like that about Alberta online. Just curious.

[mersar]

Forms are up for the first set of piers at Stoney and 22X. Tons of piling happening around that interchange, probably a couple hundred piles have been put into the ground I'd guess based on how many times I've been down there in the past weeks and one day they are standing 30' above ground and the next they're all in the ground then another set appears waiting to be fully driven in the ground. The pier caps look to be poured already for the bridge over the canal, and the approaches to the bridge are mostly built now as well it looks like. Tons of earth moving around Glenmore, its like driving through a narrow valley with all the earth moving on either side. And at 17th ave they've started laying out stakes for where Stoney will be going south of 17th. The Peigan and 61st interchange and flyovers and the connections to 84th Street also are well underway. Cranston/Mckenzie Lake quite a few piers are now poured, that interchange is going to take shape pretty quickly.

[fusili]

I know that when a property is needed for a government project, they can expropriate your land and pay compensation, but does anyone know about compensation for land owners that are not expropriated, but are still affected by a new road (for instance)?

So, if I have a house that is going to be 30 feet from a new 8-lane highway, and my property title has no caveats on it saying that a road might one day get built there, does the government compensate for a loss of property value?

Someone once said that they do have to pay something, but I can't find anything like that about Alberta online. Just curious.

Government does not have to pay you anything if they are not taking your land. In the US they might, but not here. The rule in Canada is that compensation does not follow property value up or down. The argument is that while you may lose property value due to an adjacent highway, the government does not compensate you, just as they don't take money from you if they build a park adjacent.

There was a precedent case about a mining company in BC that tried to get the government to compensate them for a planning decision that prevented them from mining the land.

[MalcolmTucker]

I know that when a property is needed for a government project, they can expropriate your land and pay compensation, but does anyone know about compensation for land owners that are not expropriated, but are still affected by a new road (for instance)?

So, if I have a house that is going to be 30 feet from a new 8-lane highway, and my property title has no caveats on it saying that a road might one day get built there, does the government compensate for a loss of property value?

Someone once said that they do have to pay something, but I can't find anything like that about Alberta online. Just curious.

No compensation I believe. There is a standard for noise walls, etc. You cannot exercise property rights outside of your property, beyond your general ability to be a citizen as a NIMBY.

If compensation was needed, nothing public or private could get built.

[fusili]

No compensation I believe. There is a standard for noise walls, etc. You cannot exercise property rights outside of your property, beyond your general ability to be a citizen as a NIMBY.

Never underestimate the power of the NIMBY!

[5seconds]

No compensation I believe. There is a standard for noise walls, etc. You cannot exercise property rights outside of your property, beyond your general ability to be a citizen as a NIMBY.

If compensation was needed, nothing public or private could get built.

That's kind of what I thought, but then I know that in Oakridge there are caveats on land titles that are near the 37th street right-of-way that indicate a future use for a road. Why would the government need to do that if there is no need for compensation?

I was under the impression that this was there to mitigate their need to compensate neighbouring land owners, because the notice was always there that there would be a future infrastructure project that would affect their property. Again, I don't know the law, so I was interested.

[5seconds]

edit........

[mersar]

That's kind of what I thought, but then I know that in Oakridge there are caveats on land titles that are near the 37th street right-of-way that indicate a future use for a road. Why would the government need to do that if there is no need for compensation?

I was under the impression that this was there to mitigate their need to compensate neighbouring land owners, because the notice was always there that there would be a future infrastructure project that would affect their property. Again, I don't know the law, so I was interested.

Most of the caveats are there more for the reason of if they end up needing your property to build it (even if its a case like the GE5 where the property was only needed during construction but not after, you can't claim you didn't know that some day it may happen. There were similar caveats on properties near 17th ave SW I believe related to the WLRT.

[5seconds]

Most of the caveats are there more for the reason of if they end up needing your property to build it (even if its a case like the GE5 where the property was only needed during construction but not after, you can't claim you didn't know that some day it may happen. There were similar caveats on properties near 17th ave SW I believe related to the WLRT.

Like a pre-warning of potential expropriation? That makes sense. I would like the see the language of those titles.

The GE5 land that you mention, is that the land that's now a park behind the sound barriers?

[mersar]

Like a pre-warning of potential expropriation? That makes sense. I would like the see the language of those titles.

The GE5 land that you mention, is that the land that's now a park behind the sound barriers?

Yes. That used to be houses and businesses that were torn down to allow for the detour alignment during construction, its only a park now as the residents screamed when the city proposed selling the land for redevelopment.

[fusili]

That's kind of what I thought, but then I know that in Oakridge there are caveats on land titles that are near the 37th street right-of-way that indicate a future use for a road. Why would the government need to do that if there is no need for compensation?

I was under the impression that this was there to mitigate their need to compensate neighbouring land owners, because the notice was always there that there would be a future infrastructure project that would affect their property. Again, I don't know the law, so I was interested.

Most of the caveats are there more for the reason of if they end up needing your property to build it (even if its a case like the GE5 where the property was only needed during construction but not after, you can't claim you didn't know that some day it may happen. There were similar caveats on properties near 17th ave SW I believe related to the WLRT.

I am not sure about caveats on title, but there are numerous roads in the city that have a road widening setback on them. All properties bordering these roads just have an increased setback. There is no caveat for this, just a larger setback. The purpose is just to prevent people from building over the land that will eventually be expropriated for a wider road. That way the city only has to expropriate a strip of the land, rather than the entire property, and it saves a ton on demolition costs. The usefullness of the road widening setbacks in much of the inner city, that is a different matter altogether.

[5seconds]

I am not sure about caveats on title, but there are numerous roads in the city that have a road widening setback on them. All properties bordering these roads just have an increased setback. There is no caveat for this, just a larger setback. The purpose is just to prevent people from building over the land that will eventually be expropriated for a wider road. That way the city only has to expropriate a strip of the land, rather than the entire property, and it saves a ton on demolition costs. The usefullness of the road widening setbacks in much of the inner city, that is a different matter altogether.

My Parents house in Killarney has that, I believe it's about 5 feet. I know this because once when the city was upgrading the sewer line along their road, my Dad asked them why they were stopping at the sidewalk. The guy said that the city only replaces the pipes up to the property line (after which, it's the property owners problem). When my Dad told him that there was a setback, he called in and confirmed, and then had to replace the pipes for an additional 5 feet. Luckily, his was only the 4th house they got to, so they didn't have to re-do that much!

It's interesting as well, that most people that have any kind of fence or hedge on his road have built/planted to the property line, but you can tell the people that don't know about the setback, and have built out too far.

I wonder exactly what the caveats on the Oakridge properties actually say.

[You Need A Thneed]

My Parents house in Killarney has that, I believe it's about 5 feet. I know this because once when the city was upgrading the sewer line along their road, my Dad asked them why they were stopping at the sidewalk. The guy said that the city only replaces the pipes up to the property line (after which, it's the property owners problem). When my Dad told him that there was a setback, he called in and confirmed, and then had to replace the pipes for an additional 5 feet. Luckily, his was only the 4th house they got to, so they didn't have to re-do that much!

It's interesting as well, that most people that have any kind of fence or hedge on his road have built/planted to the property line, but you can tell the people that don't know about the setback, and have built out too far.

I wonder exactly what the caveats on the Oakridge properties actually say.

I think there is about 8' between the curb and the property line for my house. There is no sidewalk on my side of the street, so nearly a third of what I would call my front yard actually belongs to the city. It's incredible how many people spend big bucks to landscape city property that is adjacent to the property that they own.

[5seconds]

Interesting stuff. I just found this from the Alberta Municipal Government Act

Public works affecting land 534
(1) In this section, “injurious affection” means, in respect of land, the permanent reduction in the appraised value of land as a result of the existence, but not the construction, erection or use, of a public work or structure for which the municipality would be liable if the existence of the public work or structure were not under the authority of an enactment.

(2) Within one year after the construction or erection of a public work or structure is completed, as signified by the construction completion certificate, the municipality must deliver or mail to every owner of land that abuts land on which the public work or structure is situated, and place in a newspaper circulating in the municipality, a notice that
(a) identifies the public work or structure,
(b) gives the date of completion, and
(c) states that claims for compensation under this section must be received within 60 days after the notice is published in the newspaper.

(3) Subject to subsection (4), an owner of land that abuts land on which a public work or structure is situated is entitled to compensation from the municipality for injurious affection to the owner’s land.

(4) An owner of land described in subsection (3) is entitled to compensation under this section only if the owner files with the municipality a claim within 60 days after notice of the completion of the public work or structure is published in the newspaper.

Found here:
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.qp.alberta.ca%2Fdocuments%2FActs%2Fm26.pdf&rct=j&q=Municipal%20Government%20Act%20alberta&ei=6xvkTcuVH6_biAKR1KnCBg&usg=AFQjCNE1Cj2hHVHhZB1wCvB60N8EbLE7vQ

Which seems to suggest that compensation is on the table, but only if your land actually abuts the land that the road is built on.

[MalcolmTucker]

The municipality is liable the municipality would be liable if the existence of the public work or structure were not under the authority of an enactment

So if they do something without the entire planning process, including the ability to appeal to a subdivision appeal board for example, then they would be liable.

At least that is how I read it, but I am no lawyer. Toronto had big problems with the St Claire street car right of way project because they didn't follow the proper approval process, which might be an example of "not under the authority of an enactment".

[5seconds]

The municipality is liable

So if they do something without the entire planning process, including the ability to appeal to a subdivision appeal board for example, then they would be liable.

At least that is how I read it, but I am no lawyer. Toronto had big problems with the St Claire street car right of way project because they didn't follow the proper approval process, which might be an example of "not under the authority of an enactment".

Yea, I'm going to have to read that section a little more closely.

[cranium]

Progress on SERR seems to be coming along nicely with the exception of the Sun Valley/Chaparral Blvd. interchange, where absolutely zero surface work has occurred. Anyone know what's up with this section of the project?

[mersar]

Progress on SERR seems to be coming along nicely with the exception of the Sun Valley/Chaparral Blvd. interchange, where absolutely zero surface work has occurred. Anyone know what's up with this section of the project?

According to the SEST web site earthworks for there aren't scheduled to start until later this summer.

[craner]

I sure hope the province beginns work on 22X accross Macleod and east before this current phase is complete. It's going to be an absolute gong show on that overpass if they don't.
(just my $0.02)

[Oliver Klozov]

I think there is about 8' between the curb and the property line for my house. There is no sidewalk on my side of the street, so nearly a third of what I would call my front yard actually belongs to the city. It's incredible how many people spend big bucks to landscape city property that is adjacent to the property that they own.

Normally an easy way to figure out where your property line is is to locate the curb stop (the valve for your water service). It will be on the property line. The water and sewer lines from there to the mains are the city's and their responsibility.

[freeweed]

Normally an easy way to figure out where your property line is is to locate the curb stop (the valve for your water service). It will be on the property line. The water and sewer lines from there to the mains are the city's and their responsibility.

Holy crap, that's abut 4-5 feet up my driveway. Good to know the city can tear up my driveway whenever they feel like it. :haha:

[Mazrim]

I sure hope the province beginns work on 22X accross Macleod and east before this current phase is complete. It's going to be an absolute gong show on that overpass if they don't.
(just my $0.02)

RFP is already out for Macleod/22X. ;) The RFP calls it Macleod Trail / Stoney Trail Interchange, btw.

I will try to find out the estimated date of construction.

[5seconds]

New alignment and open houses delayed until Autumn or Winter.

http://www.ward11calgary.ca/2011/06/southwest-ring-road-oopen-house-delays/

Apparently they are still working on answering questions and concern from the Open Houses in February.

[craner]

^ More delays - that's the story of the SWRR. :rolleyes:

Thanks for the good news on a Macleod/22X interchange Mazrim.:cheers:

[Mazrim]

^ More delays - that's the story of the SWRR. :rolleyes:

Interesting note: Highway 8 twinning has also been slowed by the amount of questions and concerns from open houses and stakeholder consultation. In Highway 8s case though the bigger time consuming part is from developers in the area. If I've learned anything the last couple years, it's that anyone claiming lack of public interaction in these projects is not very well informed.

[Bender77]

Here are two photo's that I grabbed with my phone as I waited at the light by the 22X/Cranston Blvd/Mc Kenzie Lake Blvd intersection. They have also ripped up the entire south west side of the hill for what will be the future off ramp. I'll see if I can get a picture of that sometime as well.

May 20th
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3531/5811756687_de1832be68.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/63843881@N03/5811756687/)

June 8th
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2302/5812323888_5f1800b865.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/63843881@N03/5812323888/)

[mooky]

I don't know if it was part of Stoney Trail work (isn't mcleod/22x part of the SWRR future?) but on Sunday there was a dozer out moving some dirt on the northwest side of the interchange between the macleod to 22x westbound and 22x to macleod southbound cloverleaf. It was only one single dozer though, so I dunno what was up and only caught it in a passing manner as I was going by in the spruce meadows traffic jam..

[tmjr]

Tsuu T'ina chief revives hope for Calgary ring road (http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Tsuu+chief+revives+hope+Calgary+ring+road/4985465/story.html)
(By Jason Fekete, Calgary Herald)


Tsuu T'ina Chief Sandford Big Plume says he is about to conclude "frank" discussions with his people about potentially reopening negotiations with the province on the southwest ring road and voting on a new deal.

A source on the reserve who is familiar with the matter said talks are underway on the timing for a possible referendum on a renewed deal to sell reserve land to construct the southwest ring road.


The article goes into some detail regarding the land that was to be added to the reserve:


Located adjacent to the reserve's northwest corner, the family's land was first settled in 1887 by Richard Copithorne, an Irish immigrant who founded the historic CL Ranch on the banks of Jumping Pound Creek.

The Copithornes have also held grazing rights to provincial lands in the area for more than a century, and continue to rent property from the First Nation.

The family's five-year lease for grazing rights on the provincial land expires in November and there has been no word as to whether the government will renew the agreement or if it needs the property as a key bargaining chip for the ring road.

[mersar]

Tons of work in the SE, they've started putting the girders up on the bridge over the canal south of Glenmore, the piers on the first bridge at 22X/Stoney/88th have had the cap poured and the forms are all off now, tons of piling happening there and you can tell where about a half dozen of the sets of piers will be located.

[5seconds]

Tsuu T'ina chief revives hope for Calgary ring road (http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Tsuu+chief+revives+hope+Calgary+ring+road/4985465/story.html)
(By Jason Fekete, Calgary Herald)

The article goes into some detail regarding the land that was to be added to the reserve:

My thinking is that if these frank talks were not going well, then he wouldn't have made a public announcement. I think we will see this issue brought up again formally, quite soon.

EDIT: The article mentions that the land-in-trade has their grazing rights due for renewal in November. I suspect we will see those rights allowed to lapse, a new, slightly clarified deal presented within a few months, and a vote by the band before next summer. In the mean time, the province should continue to plan for 37th street (as much as I detest it) as a reminder to the band that theirs is not the only game in town.

Though it all comes down to a vote, so who knows what will happen.

[Calgarian]

I really hope they can come to an agreement. The Tsuu T'ina proposal is by far the best for both Calgary and the Reserve.

I wonder what effect the new SE ring road will have on Deerfoot Tr.

[Seadood]

I really hope they can come to an agreement. The Tsuu T'ina proposal is by far the best for both Calgary and the Reserve.

I wonder what effect the new SE ring road will have on Deerfoot Tr.

I don't think the Band is unreasonable, perhaps they were more surprised by the negativity off-reserve as a result of the vote.


As for the new RR, yeah, it'll save the Deerfoot. People will be willing to drive 3-5 miles east to get on a freeway that moves. The SE is exploding commercially, this can't come at a better time.

[Seadood]

What is the status with the interchange completion? Seems like no action. Tick, tock...........

[freeweed]

What is the status with the interchange completion? Seems like no action. Tick, tock...........

Every few days a machine moves a few cubic metres of dirt. Then it sits silent for a while. Typical Canadian roadwork - we have all summer, so why not plan things so poorly that it takes all summer?

After seeing entire freeways rebuilt in a matter of days in Japan, it's a bit disgusting to see just how long everything takes here.

[polishavenger]

Every few days a machine moves a few cubic metres of dirt. Then it sits silent for a while. Typical Canadian roadwork - we have all summer, so why not plan things so poorly that it takes all summer?

After seeing entire freeways rebuilt in a matter of days in Japan, it's a bit disgusting to see just how long everything takes here.

Its not due to lack of ability, its due to lack of funds. Same thing went on with the twinning of highway 1 from banff to louise, lack of funds resulted in work slowing down to a crawl.

[Mazrim]

After seeing entire freeways rebuilt in a matter of days in Japan, it's a bit disgusting to see just how long everything takes here.
Entire freeways? If you're talking about that one highway that got so much press about being rebuilt in 6 days, that was a 150m stretch of road.

I don't think comparing the endlessly changed scope of the Crowchild interchange with everything else is too fair. If you recall, the entire NE Stoney Trail was built inside the timeframe of the Crowchild interchange construction.

[freeweed]

Entire freeways? If you're talking about that one highway that got so much press about being rebuilt in 6 days, that was a 150m stretch of road.

And how many 150m stretches of road would it take to finish the interchange? Multiply by 6 and that's the new schedule. ;)

I don't think comparing the endlessly changed scope of the Crowchild interchange with everything else is too fair.

Sure, but the scope was nailed down last year at the very latest. There's no excuse for it crawling along now.

If you recall, the entire NE Stoney Trail was built inside the timeframe of the Crowchild interchange construction.

Yeah, and that should clue everyone in that it's possible to build this stuff a heck of a lot faster.

I'm not surprised or even upset that the interchange has taken years. After all, I'm getting a closer LRT station out of the deal (one of the major reasons for delays a few years back). What I am shocked at is how freaking long the last couple of ramps and handful of lanes are taking. The entire thing is designed, earth-moving is mostly done - bring in some pavers already!

But as pointed out, it comes down to a lack of funds. More specifically, a lack of proper planning of allocation of said funds. Same reason it's going to take another 3 years to build a single small LRT station in Tuscany, while the entire WLRT project will be completed in less time.

[Mazrim]

Same reason it's going to take another 3 years to build a single small LRT station in Tuscany, while the entire WLRT project will be completed in less time.

If the City didn't keep changing their minds on what they want at Tuscany, it would probably be well under construction by this point.

[MalcolmTucker]

There's no excuse for it crawling along now.

Rain. That is all.

[MalcolmTucker]

If the City didn't keep changing their minds on what they want at Tuscany, it would probably be well under construction by this point.
When MSI was stretched out the city extended the time frame for completion on the Tuscany LRT. It was either that, delay another project or borrow money. Showed how much administration thought the station was actually needed.

[freeweed]

If the City didn't keep changing their minds on what they want at Tuscany, it would probably be well under construction by this point.

My personal belief is that this is a grand psychological experiment to see just how long a populace can withstand continual road construction on the same road. Lubicon (who lives(d?) in Tuscany) figures it's been 12-13 years of continual construction on Crowchild already - I can't remember exactly how long, maybe he can pipe up? Add in the inevitable tearing up of the road for the Tuscany LRT station (or at least the inevitable "my dad works here" slow zone even when her dad is nowhere to be seen), and that will put us in the 15-16 year range. We're not talking about a 50km major freeway like Deerfoot either - it's just the section between Brentwood and 12 mile Coulee. About 9km in total.

Nearly an entire generation who have never seen this relatively short section of Crowchild NOT be a slowed-down construction zone. Kinda scary.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of what's been done on the road. And the plans in general around Calgary. It's just frustrating to see such glacial progress sometimes, when we know damn well it can be done so much faster. The entire overpass at Sarcee took exactly 7 months from a sign going up until it opened to traffic - this is what floored me with how quick road construction used to happen in Calgary when I first moved here - yet I've seen the exact same overpass design take 2-3 years of traffic disruption in other cases.