Calgary Roads

[DizzyEdge]

I think what he's proposing is separate highstreet and car-centric routes through an area, rather than attempting to combine the two.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

I think what he's proposing is separate highstreet and car-centric routes through an area, rather than attempting to combine the two.

Except by doing that you cut off part of the residents (at least 50%) from the high street.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

Except by doing that you cut off part of the residents (at least 50%) from the high street.

Well and the cost of interchanges, etc.
I agree that even lots of slow moving (or barely moving) traffic that occurs when commuters end up funneled into local streets is a negative, but that will only occur a couple of hours during each rush hour.

[dazzlingdave88]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Thanks for the detailed reply - sorry mine will only be short!

There has to be a balance though? Do you think all high volume roads in cities are bad?

You imply that high volume roads all have to be km wide Deerfoot style roads, but this I think isn't fair - roads like Crowchild and Glenmore are litttle wider than 16th Ave and Macleod, and in my opinion are less destructive to the local environment. High volumes of cars are separated from the places where you don't want them.

I am an advocate for transit, but I don't think making roads worse is the right way to go about it, I think we should encourage it by making transit better.

I like the setup Melbourne has - excellent local trams and long distance rail, but at the same time they have expensively tolled but very high quality freeways away from downtown. I highly doubt anyone there looks at our lack of quality roads with envy.

I do, however, think Calgary's method of limiting parking spaces downtown is a stroke of genius.

Great points. Love the idea of a toll.

I think a combination of what you and sim are advocating for is the optimum way to design a transportation network in a city. I also think you guys are not really really that far apart in your viewpoints.

[milomilo]

Thanks for your responses guys, I'm enjoying discussing this.

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

How is something that I can cross as a pedestrian/cyclist every 2 blocks more destructive than something I can only cross every 10-15 blocks if you're lucky?

16th/Macleod can be redeemed, Deerfoot and Crowchild are so far gone it would take a massive effort to get them back to a multi-modal corridor.

They can't be redeemed without fundamentally changing them - ripping out half the lanes and stopping them being a primary artery for our city (one's even the Trans Canada!). What we have now is a block either side of these roads filled with auto-centric stripmall style developments, as no one is going to spend any time walking around or to these places. Compare that to Crowchild around the Marda Loop area, where the surrounding neighbourhoods are largely not affected by the road.

Just because there is a slightly higher spacing of crossings doesn't mean these boulevards are pedestrian friendly - the original post I replied to by Rusty mentioned having to walk many blocks and a 60 second light countdown. Building thoughtful pathways, underpasses and overpasses between transit stations, destination areas etc where people actually want to go rather than arbitrarily following the roads will provide a much nicer experience for pedestrians. Memorial is a great example of this (minus the lack of a crossing at the Peace Bridge).

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

I think what he's proposing is separate highstreet and car-centric routes through an area, rather than attempting to combine the two.

Essentially, yes.

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

Except by doing that you cut off part of the residents (at least 50%) from the high street.

Our high streets should be fronted mainly by retail anyway, I don't really see what the problem here is? An example of what we could do - reconfigure the roads around Kensington Road so that everything can go via Memorial or service access via the alleys. Then pedestrianise Kensington Road. How would that not be better?

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by dazzlingdave88

Great points. Love the idea of a toll.

I think a combination of what you and sim are advocating for is the optimum way to design a transportation network in a city. I also think you guys are not really really that far apart in your viewpoints.

Thanks. The more I think about it I do think tolled freeways would be a way forward.

With the caveat, however, that we do it properly. Not merely as a way to finance arbitrary, difficult to fund roads (like some have suggested to fund the SWRR - which would be counter productive). Rather, all of our freeways should be tolled at a level sufficient that we can fund major improvements. The toll could also be set at a level to manage demand.

We don't need a toll for all roads, as we already have a user pay system (gas tax) - although that could definitely be looked at for additional funding.

[sim]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Thanks for the detailed reply - sorry mine will only be short!

There has to be a balance though? Do you think all high volume roads in cities are bad?


You imply that high volume roads all have to be km wide Deerfoot style roads, but this I think isn't fair - roads like Crowchild and Glenmore are litttle wider than 16th Ave and Macleod, and in my opinion are less destructive to the local environment. High volumes of cars are separated from the places where you don't want them.

I am an advocate for transit, but I don't think making roads worse is the right way to go about it, I think we should encourage it by making transit better.

I like the setup Melbourne has - excellent local trams and long distance rail, but at the same time they have expensively tolled but very high quality freeways away from downtown. I highly doubt anyone there looks at our lack of quality roads with envy.

I do, however, think Calgary's method of limiting parking spaces downtown is a stroke of genius.

Good discussion and I apologize if I come off a bit... heavy-handed, but a couple things:

First Paragraph
I don't imply that they are 1 km wide. Glenmore and Crowchild are massive barriers - except in Kensington. They might not be Deerfoot massive, but they are substantial. How are you suppose to comfortably, and often physically, access transit in the GE5 area? I'm not sure what you mean by "destructive to the environment", as that is rather multifaceted. I guess to keep that much shorter, the best way to reduce that destruction is to reduce the vehicle kilometers travelled. You do that by reducing roadway (particularly freeway) lane kilometres.

Second Paragraph
Again, this is relative. I'm exactly saying transit needs to be made better and that this happen, simply by not continually making roadway "improvements". If the improvement isn't explicitly for transit and only transit (or active modes, especially walking), it isn't making transit better. A hypothetical interchange or freeway; one that doesn't somehow create transit access barriers so that travel times for a transit rider and for a car driver decrease equally, does not make transit better. It makes transit the same. Unfortunately, that hypothetical interchange or freeway doesn't and can't exist, so transit gets worse.

And we haven't even talked about what that does to transit operational costs. We could also make transit better, by going over or under these barriers. This is a very real-world option and done in lots of places. Unfortunately, it also comes with very real costs, not just capital, but operationally. If you get the ridership out of it, then it might work. I don't think it needs to be restated here how density/intensity promotes ridership.

I'm not advocating making roads "worse" per se. We are momentarily stuck with what we have. I'm advocating quitting doing more of the same, so we can eventually not be stuck with it and make some actual headway in making transit better in very cost-feasible and realistic ways.

Toll roads:
Type "toll roads in australia" into Google and see what happens. Australia is basically the ne plus ultra of failing toll roads. I believe Melbourne is no exception.

But I think you are advocating for congestion charging, although your last post conflicts that..

I believe this is where it gets grey. I'm for congestion charging in principle, especially on per km basis, but it does beg the question, which I think hasn't been adequately addressed in the literature/schemes developed, why not let congestion self-regulate road use in which would be a much more equitable, democratic means? Provide the alternatives (actual better transit - transit lanes, signal priority, grade-separate) and don't worry about setting up expensive, politically and socially contentious, complicated schemes.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by sim

Good discussion and I apologize if I come off a bit... heavy-handed, but a couple things:

1. I don't really imply that. Glenmore and Crowchild are massive barriers - except in Kensington. They might not be Deerfoot massive, but they are there. How are you suppose to comfortably, and often physically, access transit in the GE5 area? I'm not sure what you mean be destructive to the environment, as that is rather multifaceted. I guess to keep that much shorter, the best way to reduce that destruction is to reduce the vehicle kilometers travelled. You do that by reducing roadway (particularly freeway lane kilometres).

Again, this is relative. I'm exactly saying transit needs to be made better and that this would be the case, simply by not continually making roadway "improvements". If the improvement isn't explicitly for transit and only transit (or active modes, especially walking), it isn't making transit better. A hypothetical interchange or freeway; one that doesn't somehow create transit access barriers (which they all do, but let's assume), so that travel times for a transit rider and for car driver decrease equally, does not make transit better. It makes transit the same. Unfortunately, that hypothetical interchange or freeway doesn't and can't exist.

And we haven't even talked about what that does to transit operational costs. We could also make transit better, by going over or under these barriers. This is a very real-world option and done in lots of places. Unfortunately, it also comes with very real costs, not just capital, but operationally.

I'm not advocating making roads "worse" per se. We are momentarily stuck with what we have. I'm advocating quitting doing more of the same, so we can eventually not be stuck with it and make some actual headway in making transit better in very cost-feasible and realistic ways.

Toll roads:
Type "toll roads in australia" into Google and see what happens. They are basically the ne plus ultra of failing toll roads. I believe Melbourne is no exception.

But I think you are advocating for congestion charging, although your last post conflicts that..

I believe this is where it gets grey. I'm for congestion charging in principle, especially on per km basis, but it does beg the question, which I think hasn't been adequately addressed in the literature/schemes developed, why not let congestion self-regulate road use in which would be a much more equitable, democratic means? Provide the alternatives (actual better transit - transit lanes, signal priority, grade-separate) and don't worry about setting up expensive, politically and socially contentious, complicated schemes.

Turning 24 St SW into Crowchild certainly created a barrier to pedestrians but I think it isn't clear at all that a GE5 style project would make the Kensington area worse for transit or pedestrians compared to the status quo. Crowchild is already a massive barrier that can only be crossed at certain locations. Now I don't think we should but mainly because it is hugely expensive and I can't see how putting that money towards the 8th Ave Subway and 50 LRVs wouldn't aid mobility much more while having all kinds of ancillary benefits to sustainability.

When GE5 is your example of interchanges doing damage to transit and pedestrian access, I think you're reaching. Crossing Glenmore at grade was not a pleasant pedestrian experience.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by sim

Good discussion and I apologize if I come off a bit... heavy-handed, but a couple things:

First Paragraph
I don't imply that they are 1 km wide. Glenmore and Crowchild are massive barriers - except in Kensington. They might not be Deerfoot massive, but they are substantial. How are you suppose to comfortably, and often physically, access transit in the GE5 area? I'm not sure what you mean by "destructive to the environment", as that is rather multifaceted. I guess to keep that much shorter, the best way to reduce that destruction is to reduce the vehicle kilometers travelled. You do that by reducing roadway (particularly freeway) lane kilometres.

To clarify, I'm only talking about the roads' effect on the local, human, environment. Impact on the natural environment/climate etc is a whole other discussion!

This may come down to opinion, but zeroing in on the Kensington portion of Crowchild, I truly and honestly believe that putting it in a trench or some other means of grade separation would be massively better for everyone - aesthetically and practically. What we have at the moment is just disgusting and completely severs both sides - due to the volume of traffic the signal cycle is unbearingly long, frustrating all users. I personally must have wasted hours of my life at one particular left turn signal there, and I expect everyone else on 5th Ave would be happy if they had better access to the road.

If there was a flyover there, pedestrian/cycle traffic would have a much easier and faster route between the two sides.


In regards to transit - I don't expect buses to navigate interchanges, for all the reasons you've said. Buses should be on local streets, ideally unhindered by too much commuter traffic. If we use GE5 as the example, then Elbow Drive is where buses should (and of course, do!) run North-South. For other routes we should consider transit only cut-throughs and right of ways, to connect transit through neighbourhoods without creating back routes for automobile traffic.


I couldn't find much on the problems of toll roads in Australia after some googling? I mainly like the idea as it could help get around the obvious problem that these roads are hugely expensive. If people were more exposed to how much it costs, then $5b on the Green Line might not look so bad.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

Turning 24 St SW into Crowchild certainly created a barrier to pedestrians but I think it isn't clear at all that a GE5 style project would make the Kensington area worse for transit or pedestrians compared to the status quo. Crowchild is already a massive barrier that can only be crossed at certain locations. Now I don't think we should but mainly because it is hugely expensive and I can't see how putting that money towards the 8th Ave Subway and 50 LRVs wouldn't aid mobility much more while having all kinds of ancillary benefits to sustainability.

When GE5 is your example of interchanges doing damage to transit and pedestrian access, I think you're reaching. Crossing Glenmore at grade was not a pleasant pedestrian experience.

This is also pretty much exactly what I think!

If I were to pick road projects in an ideal world, all I think we really need are Glenmore and Crowchild freeflow end to end. I'd say all of 16th Ave as well but it's too far gone.

If we had those two roads done, Stoney trail complete and other piecemeal interchange improvements, I'd be happy to call the road network 'complete' and then we could really focus our efforts on Transit.

[sim]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

Turning 24 St SW into Crowchild certainly created a barrier to pedestrians but I think it isn't clear at all that a GE5 style project would make the Kensington area worse for transit or pedestrians compared to the status quo. Crowchild is already a massive barrier that can only be crossed at certain locations. Now I don't think we should but mainly because it is hugely expensive and I can't see how putting that money towards the 8th Ave Subway and 50 LRVs wouldn't aid mobility much more while having all kinds of ancillary benefits to sustainability.

When GE5 is your example of interchanges doing damage to transit and pedestrian access, I think you're reaching. Crossing Glenmore at grade was not a pleasant pedestrian experience.

It's not reaching, it's just a poignant example. Grab google earth, turn on the public transit layer so it shows the stops, and find how many are in and around interchanges. There won't be many, but where there are some, head to Streetview and see what they look like/ if you'd think it a comfortable, accessible environment to be walking to and waiting for a bus. Do the same along Crowchild south of the river...

And I might add, that only further reinforces what I'm saying. Glenmore then, was more or less a Blackfoot now: It's also large and has large barriers. I'm just sticking to the truly large stuff to keep this discussion framed.

I can't understate this enough, the more freeways and therefore interchanges or vice versa a city has, the less transit ridership there is. This isn't something I'm making up.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by sim

It's not reaching, it's just a poignant example. Grab google earth, turn on the public transit layer so it shows the stops, and find how many are in and around interchanges. There won't be many, but where there are some, head to Streetview and see what they look like/ if you'd think it a comfortable, accessible environment to be walking to and waiting for a bus. Do the same along Crowchild south of the river...

I can't understate this enough, the more freeways and therefore interchanges or vice versa a city has, the less transit ridership there is. This isn't something I'm making up.

It isn't a poignant example. Yes, there are awkward bus stops that aren't particularly pleasant to access and no, it isn't a a great area to be a pedestrian. So yeah, putting a GE5 at 17 Ave @ 4 St SW would be an epic disaster that would do massive damage to the pedestrian realm. The thing is, Glenmore was not a pedestrian friendly area in 2004. I'd much rather walk between Kingsland and Chinook by crossing Glenmore @ 5 St today than in 2004.

There are projects that can improve transit and roads at the same time. If a project shaves travel time for drivers and transit riders it is a win win. The former does not negate the latter. When you state it does, I have to question what you think the point of transit is? Is it to improve people's mobility?

[sim]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

It isn't a poignant example. Yes, there are awkward bus stops that aren't particularly pleasant to access and no, it isn't a a great area to be a pedestrian. So yeah, putting a GE5 at 17 Ave @ 4 St SW would be an epic disaster that would do massive damage to the pedestrian realm. The thing is, Glenmore was not a pedestrian friendly area in 2004. I'd much rather walk between Kingsland and Chinook by crossing Glenmore @ 5 St today than in 2004.

There are projects that can improve transit and roads at the same time. If a project shaves travel time for drivers and transit riders it is a win win. The former does not negate the latter. When you state it does, I have to question what you think the point of transit is? Is it to improve people's mobility?

Unfortunately, the networked nature of the roadway system does not allow a linear application of how these things work. Blackfoot, Barlow, McKnight, 14 St, Shagannapi, Country Hills, etc etc, are all similar to what Glenmore was. "Improving" said roads by further grade separation and restricted access, will merely ensure that roads further downstream start to suffer the same issues. I do wonder if your stated preference (one that requires you to compare something from 10 years ago to now) reflects what you'd actually do. It sure seems that for Calgary as a whole, this is not the case - you know, with our overall mode share still trending ever more toward vehicle use.

It's a win-win at best if you're content on keeping transit as marginal for most people as it currently is. Win-win is an illusion. If such a thing existed, you wouldn't need to bring projects to council, even if it is not explicit.

Give me an example of a project that is truly a win-win, in every form - including long-term costs, broader sustainability goals, and land use patterns and most importantly, how they "win" relative to one another. I'm seriously all ears. A bridge for example, might come close. Unfortunately, in relative terms, it decreases vehicular travel time by the same - the difference is you can't pick anyone up on a bridge, and not every O and D needs to make use of it, so essentially you reduce accessibility (see below) unless you're willing to run more bus service. Secondly, assuming every O and D pair did necessitate a bridge, saving A to B travel time, then accentuates the dwell time as stops' delay (they become a bigger percentage of the overall travel time) which would not be the case for car drivers. At best this would be a win - 2nd place scenario (which is not to say it shouldn't be undertaken).

A transit and active mode only bridge, on the other hand - now that's a win. It's a win for absolutely all facets except vehicular mobility.

Mobility as the end goal has been, was, is and remains wrong-headed. It shows a fundamental lack of understanding of why we travel to begin with. So to keep this brief and to answer your question, it is to improve people's accessibility, and to do so in an egalitarian, more sustainable manner. Mobility is but one part of that equation, and it is also misunderstanding the broader benefits of public transit. These benefits can't be realized if transit remains marginal, because we perpetually pit it against a mode that will always have an unfair, and distorted advantage in most cases.

[milomilo]

I wasn't in Calgary before GE5, but as I understand it there were signals at Elbow Drive and 5th street with Glenmore, similar to what Crowchild is like now? I can definitely see how that would be an ugly situation and what we have now being an improvement.

I see that as a win-win. It's now easier to walk north/south - Glenmore is less of a barrier than it was before. Additionally, transit on Elbow would no longer have to wait at what I imagine were extremely long signal cycles.

[sim]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I wasn't in Calgary before GE5, but as I understand it there were signals at Elbow Drive and 5th street with Glenmore, similar to what Crowchild is like now? I can definitely see how that would be an ugly situation and what we have now being an improvement.

I see that as a win-win. It's now easier to walk north/south - Glenmore is less of a barrier than it was before. Additionally, transit on Elbow would no longer have to wait at what I imagine were extremely long signal cycles.

Hey, and neither do car drivers, but now if you're accessing a stop, it has become more difficult. So in relative terms, that "improvement" tips in favour of car drivers. It's only a win-win if you perturb the definition of win. You can score 100 goals, but if you're playing a team that scored 101, you did not win.

Anyway, I've beaten the logic into the ground, and won't go over yet again why this plays out as such, at first at a network and then a systems level, especially taking into account not just overall trip travel times, but also their costs and how they get financed, and inevitably land-use.

Again, why is it that we are still trending more and more toward car use in this City and that roadway kms supplied are so correlated with decreased transit use broadly speaking?

[craner]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I wasn't in Calgary before GE5, but as I understand it there were signals at Elbow Drive and 5th street with Glenmore, similar to what Crowchild is like now? I can definitely see how that would be an ugly situation and what we have now being an improvement.

I see that as a win-win. It's now easier to walk north/south - Glenmore is less of a barrier than it was before. Additionally, transit on Elbow would no longer have to wait at what I imagine were extremely long signal cycles.

You got it.

[mersar]

Saw a story on CBC that they've started the more indepth geotech work for the new 12th Street SE bridge. Current plan is construction next year.

And a quick note in the city's presentation from a recent open house that the 9th Ave bridge over the Elbow replacement will likely start construction in 2018 or 2019

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

I see that they are going to scrap the zoo bridge, but is there any efforts to save the 9th ave bridge and re-purpose it anywhere else?

No. There has been some thought about retaining the vertical structures of the 9th ave bridge and incorporating them into the replacement bridge.
The 'zoo bridge' was the one that was considered for re-purposing, similar to the Hextall bridge in Bowness. I would be interested in seeing the estimated cost to refurb it, more details than just 'too expensive' would be nice.

[craner]

Thanks for the info regarding the old bridges and their replacements guys.

[srperrycgy]

Found this through Twitter this morning.

Time-lapse removal of the Flanders Ave bridge over Crowchild Trail:

• Video Link