Calgary Stoney Trail [Ring Road]

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by Acey

I don't know what else you want. We've done nothing significant to Deerfoot in nearly 20 years, and when we do, it won't turn it into 401. Relax.

I just want Calgarians to be able to commute to and from work without having to sit in traffic.

Originally Posted by milomilo

but because that money could build many other much needed roads in the province.

I suppose I’m with you on this. We already had a nice talk about that in the TCH Twinning thread.

Originally Posted by Corndogger

Building freeways is cheaper than building rapid transit and is much more flexible and beneficial to the economy.

To the ears of a Vancouverite (Richmondite to be exact) turned Ontarian, that’s some serious heresy.

I would say, contain the sprawl while you can. Seriously, GTHA isn’t something you wanna learn from either. Why not strike a balance between Vancouver* and Toronto? (* Transit’s good, but Second Narrow’s Workers’ Memorial Bridge is a joke.)

[milomilo]

The overpasses would have to be longer, sorry I thought that was obvious.

Frankly, if the province had not spent some money to design an 8 lane road to compare to the 16 lane one, then that is more incompetence. If you're spending $1.4B of the public's money, then some basic cost benefit analysis would be in order.

I don't have hard numbers for volumes, only rough guesses based on other roads in the city, which is the same information you have. Because as far as we can tell, the province has never released any of their predictions.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by milomilo

The overpasses would have to be longer, sorry I thought that was obvious.

Frankly, if the province had not spent some money to design an 8 lane road to compare to the 16 lane one, then that is more incompetence. If you're spending $1.4B of the public's money, then some basic cost benefit analysis would be in order.

I don't have hard numbers for volumes, only rough guesses based on other roads in the city, which is the same information you have. Because as far as we can tell, the province has never released any of their predictions.

They kind of have and I'm sure they have detailed predictions for every section.

"The road is being built to accommodate traffic volumes projected for the next 30 years, which are estimated to be between 80,000 and 100,000 vehicles per day on some sections."

Source: https://www.alberta.ca/southwest-calgary-ring-road.aspx

I think they're underestimating the volumes.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

Source: https://www.alberta.ca/southwest-calgary-ring-road.aspx

I think they're underestimating the volumes.

Could you provide your fake-news reference?

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Could you provide your fake-news reference?

How is my opinion fake news? I'm just saying that I think they're underestimating how much this road is going to be used.

[craner]

There's this:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CePbzq9UsAEtFTV.jpg

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by Acey

7 ring road legs have opened to date. AB Trans has underestimated volume on 6 of the 7 legs, in one case by over 100% (Henday SW)

Only on leg 7 of 7 did they learn, and build it to an exceptional standard. We done, bitches.

I'd hate to be the guy having to make a 30 year prediction. But if I was that guy, I'd probably assume Stoney SW in 30 years will carry more than what Stoney at Beddington did in 2018.

I remember seeing that "We Done Bitches" sign on Twitter. From what I recall it was a huge hit on social media.

The project manager for the SW leg of 216 comes across as your typical bureaucrat and a bit of a dick. Common sense dictates roads like this should have more than four lanes and definitely no lights. The NW section in Calgary was even worse. Initially it was a two lane road!

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by craner

There's this:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CePbzq9UsAEtFTV.jpg

That appears to match up well with maps I recall seeing at some open houses. AB Transportation had them up to help to explain to people why that one section of the SW leg was going to be so big. IIRC the Tsuut'ina also wanted more access to the developments they plan on building which resulted in one or two (?) more interchanges than planned. The City was definitely not happy with that demand.

[milomilo]

I've seen that before but I'm not sure that map is an official one, 5seconds can confirm. But if it is, then if we were spending the amount of money that we did, I would expect far more of a 'plan' than that. The map also illustrates what a silly idea an outer ring road was - we shouldn't build roads simply for the sake of having a ring.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I've seen that before but I'm not sure that map is an official one, 5seconds can confirm. But if it is, then if we were spending the amount of money that we did, I would expect far more of a 'plan' than that. The map also illustrates what a silly idea an outer ring road was - we shouldn't build roads simply for the sake of having a ring.

The space between the current ring road and the outer ring road in that image is almost as big as the space within the ring road!

I don't mind people "planning" so that when 50 years or whatever hits, there is a ROW, etc., but I sure hope implementation isn't getting pushed anytime soon.

What the drawing illustrates to me is the likely directions of increase of the city limits over the next half century. It also clearly shows how the Tsuut'ina lands are only going to increase in value over time.

Regarding what drives a ring road, remember that it is as much traffic from outside as traffic from inside. I'm sure Cochrane residents would love to see that outer road (and perhaps they should pay for a larger portion of the costs, just like Okotoks, Airdrie and Chestermere).

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Acey

7 ring road legs have opened to date. AB Trans has underestimated volume on 6 of the 7 legs, in one case by over 100% (Henday SW)

Only on leg 7 of 7 did they learn, and build it to an exceptional standard. We done, bitches.

I'd hate to be the guy having to make a 30 year prediction. But if I was that guy, I'd probably assume Stoney SW in 30 years will carry more than what Stoney at Beddington did in 2018.

30 year predictions in the vehicle arena would be extremely difficult. We can't really base forward looking growth out that far based on growth over the last 30 years. While I suspect our vehicle density will not curtail to the level of say Paris or other such world cities, it will certainly curtail over that length of time, don't you think?

[Doug]

The ROW for the SW Ring Road could be used for LRT if it isn't required for additional road lanes. Future Circumferential line: Seton->Somerset->WestHills->MRU->Westbrook->Foothills Hospital->U of C

That route will always be in high demand as it will be one of the few that crosses Fish Creek Park and Glenmore Park/Weaselhead, and the most direct route servicing the massive Providence area. I made the claim in the past that the SW Ring Road could end up as one of the busiest roads in the province and stand by it.

[Wyku]

Originally Posted by Acey

Houston's lack of zoning laws have nothing to do with Stoney Trail. My goodness has this ever gone off the rails.

This thread has been a ghost town as of late, but there's suddenly a bunch of new pages of this back and forth over the plan that never was (or *was* there ever a plan....)...off the rails indeed.

Speaking of rails, I thought that if the inner road wasn't built it would make for a great rail corridor as well.

[Tobyoby]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

That map is one I made based on one that the Province distributed to local community associations in 2005.

Please stop saying that there was no plan simply because you never saw one, or implying that one map was the entirety of the planning efforts simply because you were never privy to the rest. You come across as uninformed and you seem to by happy to spread information that is at best uninformed and at worst totally incorrect.

There is plenty of reason to argue that the current SW Ring Road plan is wasteful and not the direction the City and the Province should be moving in. Hell, I largely agree, but when you or others spread misinformation, it damages the value of this forum and frankly makes me want nothing to do with this place.

Do better.

Not sure why you're getting so pissy about this? This is the Internet and people have opinions and make comments. We all know you're the unofficial
king of the ring road, but that doesn't mean someone making a comment is happily trying to spread incorrect information and needs to do better. Maybe you need to do better.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

... when you or others spread misinformation, it damages the value of this forum and frankly makes me want nothing to do with this place.

Do better.

Agreed, though probably should have been said a pinch more diplomatically.

While I've found milomilo to get his/her back up a pinch quick in the past, generally I find her/him to be fair and level headed.

Toyboy on the other hand is rarely constructive, and only dives in to take shots.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by Tobyoby

Not sure why you're getting so pissy about this? This is the Internet and people have opinions and make comments. We all know you're the unofficial
king of the ring road, but that doesn't mean someone making a comment is happily trying to spread incorrect information and needs to do better. Maybe you need to do better.

When it's been pointed out numerous times that he's wrong then he is spreading misinformation by continuing to make the same points. Just because the government removed those documents off of their website doesn't mean that they never existed.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Acey

Maybe, but If Stoney SW was at 80,000 vehicles per day in 30 years, that would still be representative of a significant decrease in growth compared to other major urban Alberta freeways in a 30 year period from their opening.

Point taken. Curious what the reality will be given so many unknowns about a quickly changing landscape IE cars.

[milomilo]

I'm sorry you all get upset when I point out the lack of any information indicating the existence of a plan that was much more than an idea, but despite all you have tried you have never found any real evidence. If a 'plan' is just that they thought it might be a good idea to have an outer ring road, then fine they had a plan. But I would have much higher expectations when spending that much money and permanently locking up land between a highway medians.

To speculate, I would guess that after the same government was in power for 40 years scrutiny became lacking. People's ideas became sacrosanct and it must not have been questioned that we needed space to build an outer ring road, because we were building an outer ring road.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

When it's been pointed out numerous times that he's wrong then he is spreading misinformation by continuing to make the same points. Just because the government removed those documents off of their website doesn't mean that they never existed.

Did the idea of an outer ring road exist? Yes. Was there any detailed design work? Questionable, no evidence exists to us. Was building the SWRR oversized to accommodate an outer ring road that they had officially abandoned any plans to build justified? Absolutely not.

It's the last part I have most issue with, and I cannot see why you of anyone would support the government wilfully wasting money.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I'm sorry you all get upset when I point out the lack of any information indicating the existence of a plan that was much more than an idea, but despite all you have tried you have never found any real evidence.

Dude. You not finding a plan means nothing. No one owes you periscopes up every skirt and down every pair of boxers. Move on man.