[korzym]

Originally Posted by Boris2k7

Uhhh, yeah, for pretty good reasons too. The fact that building those roads would have totally devastated those communities pretty more than offsets any possible gains. It would have been a total disaster.

right....................................
Would help if you described what exactly would be lost. Obviously tearing down a row of houses brings changes, there are ways they could deal with it; plus it would make 20th ave more quiet and improve things for the folks that live along that road. That road is way too far above capacity and is evidence there isn't an adequate route for E-W drivers, and you can't tell me 20th ave even passes the litmus test of an urban planner. Just put in a highway along 24th, concentrate the traffic volume to a specific area and that will ease 20th ave and surrounding areas
The ability to quickly move people and goods through the middle of the city FAR outweighs having residential houses in its place, their taking up valuable land. Economic stimulation would be quite beneficial to the city. The present set up is highly inefficient IMO.

Originally Posted by Boris2k7

I'm pretty sure that Inglewood, for example, is more than happy to have sacrificed easier commuting into the core and trucking through the city in order to have saved their community from having a freeway plowed up their collective arse.

Completely irrelevant. I've heard from the horse's mouth [city transit planner] the city is not going to do anything to improve vehicle access to downtown to encourage transit.

Originally Posted by Boris2k7

Such schemes as the ones above do well enough for suburban commuters and corporations with high volumes of trucking, but it totally fucks over local businesses and people and does irrevocable damage to the urban fabric.

There we go...so your against this because you believe it encourages the expansion of suburbs? Well what is the sense of packing more people closer to the inner city if you can't get around properly?
The government should do whatever is in it's power to help businesses, those 'nasty corporations' are ultimately good for Canadians. Those small businesses that profit from TCH traffic are just profiting from other peoples' misfortunes and are hindering greater economic expansion.

Originally Posted by Boris2k7

Now, if you could find a route through the north that could be upgraded without causing much harm, and isn't totally redundant, given the presence of the ring road (which pretty much kills anything north of Nose Hill), then I wouldn't have many concerns.


But that's besides another point. If we are going to use one of these routes as an E-W highway, for the Transcanada, and the concern is moving people and goods through Calgary, to continue along the TCH on the other end, then there is absolutely no need for more than a single detour.

Required: better E-W route in north
Options:somewhere between Mcknight and 16th ave. [ie: 24th ave 70s plan]
Obstacles: houses along south side of 24th ave, finding a way to by pass confederation park [very beloved no doubt]
In the end you dont give up any schools or parks, just a row of houses. South of 24th you'd end up with 7 blocks between 16th, thats probably the area to be effected the most, but they have a new 16th ave. There are more narrow communities in Calgary yet their still surviving
TCH relevance: I don't care about non-Calgarians here coming through the city, they could use stoney trail. It completely sucks for Calgarians to put up with slow commuting in that area, you have to understand it makes sense to use the TCH purely as an excuse to get funding to solve this problem.