HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Calgary > Transportation & Infrastructure


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #5961  
Old Posted Oct 10, 2014, 8:09 PM
MalcolmTucker MalcolmTucker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 11,429
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterG View Post
Will we have to rebuild them anyways before the extra lanes are ever built?

This should be a scandal for any government.
The structure of financing and maintenance via P3 changes the economic considerations, since you don't worry about the price today, only the price over time. Considering what construction inflation has been, it makes sense to over build that can't be easily upgraded in the future.

Sort of like buying a condo with all the upgrades, instead of renovating them in later, even though the marginal upfront cost would be unaffordable, paying for them over time and upgrading upfront is cheaper.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5962  
Old Posted Oct 10, 2014, 8:48 PM
ByeByeBaby's Avatar
ByeByeBaby ByeByeBaby is offline
Crunchin' the numbers.
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: T2R, YYC, 403, CA-AB.
Posts: 791
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5seconds View Post
I wonder if we will see Klein Trail. It sounds weird, but we have a Crowchild Trail, a city named after a Tsuu T'ina leader who was noted for efforts to bridge the gap between the City and the Nation. Ralph Klein (a City leader that did the same, but effectively in reverse) is really well regarded by the Nation, and was instrumental in getting the road pushed forward for many years.
Way wider than it needs to be, created through sheer arrogance, causes the problem it is hailed as solving - I think you've picked a perfect name.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5963  
Old Posted Oct 10, 2014, 9:17 PM
fusili's Avatar
fusili fusili is offline
Retrofit Urbanist
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 6,692
Quote:
Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker View Post
^ That number includes the import of 98.324 million tons of oil to export 81.814 millions tons of refined product, along with a huge amount of sea going to river going transshipment.

It isn't a relevant number.
Fair point. But the amount of freight they move by truck is massive. They have crazy regulations on their road use, have speed cameras everywhere that automatically ticket you if you go over the limit, and IIRC, they have laws against trucks passing each other on certain roads. I remember taking the A4 under the port with my cousin and he said on that road, trucks were required to drive in the right lane, and couldn't pass. I believe it is because when trucks pass each other, they create jams behind them. Those Dutch are super efficient. If they can find a way to improve efficiency, they do. Why we don't do the same with our major freight ways, I do not know.

EDIT- It is really cool to drive on a highway under one of the most active seaways, with huge container ships above you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by suburbia View Post
And here I thought they used their freight rail infrastructure for most of that. FUsilly me!

"Port of Rotterdam - Dedicated European freight railway"
http://www.portofrotterdam.com/en/Bu...ages/rail.aspx

https://www.google.ca/maps/@51.87051.../data=!3m1!1e3



Yup. They sometimes unload massive container ships straight on to rail without storing it in the yard first. When I went on the port tour, they said something like they can unload some ridiculously sized container ship onto a train and have the entire shipment in Paris 6 hours from when the boat docked. Really cool to watch it happen.




FUSilly? Really? Up your troll game suburbia. I'm just feeling sorry for you now.
__________________
Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5964  
Old Posted Oct 10, 2014, 9:40 PM
MalcolmTucker MalcolmTucker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 11,429
If the road is three lanes, I am fully supportive on confining transport trucks into the right lane, wiht some margin for passing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5965  
Old Posted Oct 10, 2014, 10:20 PM
fusili's Avatar
fusili fusili is offline
Retrofit Urbanist
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 6,692
Quote:
Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker View Post
If the road is three lanes, I am fully supportive on confining transport trucks into the right lane, wiht some margin for passing.
It seems to work well. Also the speed enforcement is huge. Lot of "noise" in traffic flow is caused by vehicles moving at different speeds. If you are heavy on enforcement, it actually makes flow smoother.
__________________
Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5966  
Old Posted Oct 12, 2014, 8:50 PM
pulkit10 pulkit10 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusili View Post
It seems to work well. Also the speed enforcement is huge. Lot of "noise" in traffic flow is caused by vehicles moving at different speeds. If you are heavy on enforcement, it actually makes flow smoother.
I think for that to happen, they'll have to put in proper speed limits on Stoney Trail first. 100 km/h is honestly too low for what is three large lanes with plenty of run off areas and large shoulders. 110 km/h should be the bare minimum there if they want to do anything about the speeding.

Putting up cameras alone isn't going to do much for "enforcement" except tick more people off.

I agree on the trucks bit. Relegating them to the 3rd lane with limited passing opportunities is great but will only work on roads that have 3 full lanes all the time (which rules out Deerfoot entirely).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5967  
Old Posted Oct 13, 2014, 2:17 AM
Acey
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
We're at about 11 months since the SE opening and there's still orange cones and some minor work going on, it appears... but they've got everything pretty much right, except somebody still seems unsure of the difference between these two signs on the EB Glenmore to SB Stoney ramp.



Not to worry, Calgary drivers treat them the same way.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5968  
Old Posted Oct 15, 2014, 2:58 PM
mwalker_mw mwalker_mw is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acey View Post

Not to worry, Calgary drivers treat them the same way.
I was going to say...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5969  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2014, 4:46 PM
fusili's Avatar
fusili fusili is offline
Retrofit Urbanist
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 6,692
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5seconds View Post
Here is video from the Open House in Cedarbrae on October 7th. It has the presentations by Alberta Transportation, The Weaselhead Society, Cows and Fish and the Mistakis Institute.

Video Link


Interesting stuff on where the project is currently at, why certain decisions were made regarding the road and a look at the Elbow River crossing from AT and the environmental groups.

Also, tonight is the first of 4 info sessions for the SW Ring Road, also at Cedarbrae.
Mistakis person is a former classmate of mine. Will have to watch this in detail later. Thanks for posting this.
__________________
Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5970  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2014, 6:12 PM
Full Mountain's Avatar
Full Mountain Full Mountain is offline
YIMBY
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5seconds View Post
All of the presentations were excellent, all for different reasons, and the points raised by the environment groups were excellent. I hope that there is something more to be done with that crossing.

I was pointed to two architects (Barry Pendergast and Julio Freitas) who did some conceptual visualisations of a suspension bridge over the Elbow river valley in 2011. It depicts a 37th street alignment, which would be a mistake IMO, and I am sure something like this would cost a fortune, but I would be curious if there was a solution somewhere in the middle between this and what the Province is suggesting.



Credit:http://jspeer.com/barrypendergast//P.../About_Me.html
If we are going to spend $5B on this road it better have a bridge that has the least impact (visual and physical) on the environment in that area.
__________________
Incremental Photo - @PhotogX_1

Disclaimer: All opinions expressed are my own not those of any affiliated organizations.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5971  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2014, 6:32 PM
MalcolmTucker MalcolmTucker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 11,429
You mean the foothills and river valley that were modified to a delta and larger flood plain forest by human interaction? That the plan is west of?

Sure, the rough renders show the worst case scenario, but I don't get the huge concern that that will be what is implemented.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5972  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2014, 6:50 PM
fusili's Avatar
fusili fusili is offline
Retrofit Urbanist
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 6,692
Quote:
Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker View Post
You mean the foothills and river valley that were modified to a delta and larger flood plain forest by human interaction? That the plan is west of?

Sure, the rough renders show the worst case scenario, but I don't get the huge concern that that will be what is implemented.
So habitats that were created in part by human influence are not "valid" habitats? Once humans interfere with nature it is not somehow tainted or altered so it is no longer important. The question is not how the habitat was created, but what ecological function it plays (migration routes, nesting areas, spawning grounds), what value does it provide to the human population (recreation, etc) and how it ties into the wider environment. Does the Weaslehead provide a habitat for nesting of migrating birds? Does it provide spawning habitats for fish and other aquatic animals. Are there plant species in the area that play an important ecological role? Who cares it all of that was created by a man-made dam. If it is a valuable environment, it is a valuable environment.

The idea that humans are somehow separate from nature and anything we do taints or diminishes the value of a ecological area is silly.
__________________
Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5973  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2014, 8:34 PM
MalcolmTucker MalcolmTucker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 11,429
I wouldn't say anything is considered at all at this point. Design will be done by the bidder as per normal.

It is all about the what to include in minimum spec (which is likely what we saw a visualization of, something minimally functional) and what factors to include in the scoring criteria (larger river channel, less river/wildlife impacts).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5974  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2014, 5:11 AM
ggopher ggopher is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 147
In the NW, the Stoney Trail bridge that goes over the Bow River is 476m long and crosses nearly the entire valley allowing for lots of room underneath the bridge.

In the SW, the ring road will cross the Elbow River. There they are planning to use a large amount of cut and fill in the valley. The actual bridge will be ~93.5m and allow for an opening of ~60m under the bridge. The entire valley is ~1km long, which is probably too much for a bridge, but something closer in size to what is currently built in the NW over the Bow River would be much better. It is impossible to control a river and prevent future floods. The design needs to allow for the natural flooding that occurs almost every year.

Here is the plan for the elbow river crossing as presented by Alberta Transportation at the open house 7 October 2014.




The animated video from earlier in the year showed this as a single span bridge. This is slightly better.

Last edited by ggopher; Oct 24, 2014 at 2:19 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5975  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2014, 9:06 PM
J-D J-D is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker View Post
It is a lot cheaper to build without any active traffic. A new interchange on the QE2 is coming in at ~$200 million when somewhat comparable ones on the SE stoney had marginal costs in the $50 million range.
This made me wonder on the SE portion why they chose not to build the 130 ave SE interchange - I wonder if this was because the city would be responsible for pushing 130 ave eastwards?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5976  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2014, 11:26 PM
Nudrock Nudrock is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Calgary since 1983
Posts: 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by J-D View Post
This made me wonder on the SE portion why they chose not to build the 130 ave SE interchange - I wonder if this was because the city would be responsible for pushing 130 ave eastwards?
Looking at google maps, I don't think there was enough room for for a 130 ave interchange. Looks like there is only 1000m between 130ave and the start of the 22X interchange.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5977  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2014, 11:53 PM
CTrainDude CTrainDude is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 517
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nudrock View Post
Looking at google maps, I don't think there was enough room for for a 130 ave interchange. Looks like there is only 1000m between 130ave and the start of the 22X interchange.
I don't believe that would be the issue - they've done all the grading for the interchange to be built in the future, but when it is built, I don't believe you can go south from there towards 22X, only northbound on Stoney.

http://www.transportation.alberta.ca.../P-3247-55.pdf
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5978  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2014, 3:09 AM
Nudrock Nudrock is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Calgary since 1983
Posts: 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTrainDude View Post
I don't believe that would be the issue - they've done all the grading for the interchange to be built in the future, but when it is built, I don't believe you can go south from there towards 22X, only northbound on Stoney.

http://www.transportation.alberta.ca.../P-3247-55.pdf
OK - good to know.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5979  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2014, 5:15 AM
MalcolmTucker MalcolmTucker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 11,429
Marginal costs versus marginal benefits. The city's plans (as projected on contract award) in the area must be far enough out that it wasn't worth it to carry the cost for the investment for however many years.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5980  
Old Posted Nov 4, 2014, 9:10 PM
CalgaryLankan's Avatar
CalgaryLankan CalgaryLankan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 387
The Stoney Trail, right-in and right-out exit/entry to 14th Street NW will be open to traffic this weekend. This will ease traffic issue for many people in Evanston.
__________________
Follow me on twitter
https://twitter.com/CalgaryLankan
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Calgary > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:58 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.