HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #7181  
Old Posted May 10, 2017, 11:36 PM
speedog's Avatar
speedog speedog is offline
Moran supreme
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,452
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleK View Post
That's some great journalism right there...
Ur dewing it all wrong - 'That there are some gooder journalism right there.'
__________________
Just a wee bit below average prairie boy in Canada's third largest city and fourth largest CMA
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7182  
Old Posted May 11, 2017, 12:29 AM
5seconds's Avatar
5seconds 5seconds is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,614
While I do want longer bridges for a number of reasons, I don't want to see people misrepresent the situation to get what they want.

For instance, in the updated report on the new bridge design, it says that by the time the new SWCRR bridges and berm overtops, the SE dyke by Glenmore Landing will have long failed. I think we will see some fear-mongering about that, but the truth is, in a 1:500 flood event, that area will be in deep trouble with or without the new bridges.
__________________
My Southwest Calgary Ring Road Blog: calgaryringroad.wordpress.com
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7183  
Old Posted May 26, 2017, 3:47 AM
Corndogger Corndogger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,265
"Ring Road not expected to bring extra traffic to 90 Ave: City"

What is this resident referring to? This is the first I've heard that a lake is going to essentially be paved over.

Bert Seinen, who lives near some of the planned upgrades, says his concern is with the Ring Road itself.

He said a big section of one lake will be filled in so the road can be built over top. He was told there would be compensations made for that.

“I guess they’re going to build a lake somewhere else and put up signs so the frogs will know where to go? It’s just silliness,” he said.

Source: https://www.metronews.ca/news/calgar...form=hootsuite
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7184  
Old Posted May 26, 2017, 4:16 AM
speedog's Avatar
speedog speedog is offline
Moran supreme
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,452
Where is this supposed lake?
__________________
Just a wee bit below average prairie boy in Canada's third largest city and fourth largest CMA
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7185  
Old Posted May 26, 2017, 4:25 AM
Corndogger Corndogger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by speedog View Post
Where is this supposed lake?
That's what I would like to know. You would think filling in a large portion of a lake would have had environmentalists up in arms years ago.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7186  
Old Posted May 26, 2017, 5:07 AM
craner's Avatar
craner craner is offline
Go Tall or Go Home
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,880
OMG is he talking about a retention pond or something ?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7187  
Old Posted May 26, 2017, 8:13 PM
5seconds's Avatar
5seconds 5seconds is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,614
I think he is talking about the Clay Marsh that is on the Tsuut'ina Nation reserve. It's actually a fairly significant size.

https://www.google.ca/maps/place/50%...!4d-114.143611

In earlier designs the Province came up with a few alternative routes so that the marsh would not be impacted, but they were not practical (took out houses etc.) so the road was designed to take out about 40%, leaving 60% alone. However, in 2013 when the altered alignment was released, it shifted the road directly into the marsh's path, and is now entirely taking it out.

I believe that the wetland replacement policy will see the same amount of wetlands re-created, but the Nation has said that they don't want it replaced on their land, so I'm not sure where it would go. Somewhere in the general region I believe.

You can see on page 2 of this PDF that the road covers the marsh entirely: https://www.transportation.alberta.c...ing%20Road.pdf
__________________
My Southwest Calgary Ring Road Blog: calgaryringroad.wordpress.com
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7188  
Old Posted May 27, 2017, 1:05 AM
Corndogger Corndogger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5seconds View Post
I think he is talking about the Clay Marsh that is on the Tsuut'ina Nation reserve. It's actually a fairly significant size.

https://www.google.ca/maps/place/50%...!4d-114.143611

In earlier designs the Province came up with a few alternative routes so that the marsh would not be impacted, but they were not practical (took out houses etc.) so the road was designed to take out about 40%, leaving 60% alone. However, in 2013 when the altered alignment was released, it shifted the road directly into the marsh's path, and is now entirely taking it out.

I believe that the wetland replacement policy will see the same amount of wetlands re-created, but the Nation has said that they don't want it replaced on their land, so I'm not sure where it would go. Somewhere in the general region I believe.

You can see on page 2 of this PDF that the road covers the marsh entirely: https://www.transportation.alberta.c...ing%20Road.pdf
I find it interesting that the Tsuu T'ina doesn't want the marsh to be replaced on their land. Do you have any idea of why?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7189  
Old Posted May 27, 2017, 4:00 AM
milomilo milomilo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corndogger View Post
I find it interesting that the Tsuu T'ina doesn't want the marsh to be replaced on their land. Do you have any idea of why?
Why would they want it on their land?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7190  
Old Posted May 27, 2017, 4:04 AM
mersar's Avatar
mersar mersar is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 10,089
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
Why would they want it on their land?
Exactly my thoughts too. Why would they want to take what may be land that can potentially generate $$$ and turn it completely non-productive if they don't have to.
__________________

Live or work in the Beltline? Check out the Official Beltline web site here
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7191  
Old Posted May 27, 2017, 4:18 AM
Corndogger Corndogger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by mersar View Post
Exactly my thoughts too. Why would they want to take what may be land that can potentially generate $$$ and turn it completely non-productive if they don't have to.
If the marsh was originally on their land and they're supposedly so concerned about the environment they shouldn't have a problem with having another marsh. I'm not saying they should have no say where it goes but given all the extra land they were given I find it hard to believe that all of a sudden every last square inch of their land is developable. The optics are bad for them as far as I'm concerned.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7192  
Old Posted May 27, 2017, 4:20 AM
Corndogger Corndogger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
Why would they want it on their land?
Marshes have lots of benefits that's why.

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/wetlands/benefits.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7193  
Old Posted May 27, 2017, 4:21 AM
milomilo milomilo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corndogger View Post
If the marsh was originally on their land and they're supposedly so concerned about the environment they shouldn't have a problem with having another marsh. I'm not saying they should have no say where it goes but given all the extra land they were given I find it hard to believe that all of a sudden every last square inch of their land is developable. The optics are bad for them as far as I'm concerned.
The marsh is already destroyed, building a new one doesn't actually achieve anything other than make a few faux environmentalists feel better.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7194  
Old Posted May 27, 2017, 2:04 PM
5seconds's Avatar
5seconds 5seconds is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,614
Re-reading the documents, there was willingness by the Nation to have the marsh replacement occur on Nation land at a 1:1 ratio when it was just a portion of the marsh. A concern arose because I believe the replacement policy sometimes requires a 3:1 ratio, so taking up three times as much area with a wetland as was originally there.

The Nation did not want to lose that much land on an already restricted reserve, so would have accommodated the replacement, but not the extra that may have been required.

These discussions took place when the marsh was only partially affected, and the new wetlands were going to be added to the unaffected north end of the marsh, but since the alignment change, I don't have any info about the replacement efforts of the entire marsh.


Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
The marsh is already destroyed, building a new one doesn't actually achieve anything other than make a few faux environmentalists feel better.
Of course it achieves something. It provides habitat to a large number of species, and plays a role in water management for the local area.
__________________
My Southwest Calgary Ring Road Blog: calgaryringroad.wordpress.com

Last edited by 5seconds; May 27, 2017 at 2:25 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7195  
Old Posted May 27, 2017, 3:00 PM
craner's Avatar
craner craner is offline
Go Tall or Go Home
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,880
Man you're a great resource for just about anything associated with this project 5seconds.
So glad you are a contributor here - thanks again for sharing you're knowledge.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7196  
Old Posted May 27, 2017, 8:56 PM
Corndogger Corndogger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
The marsh is already destroyed, building a new one doesn't actually achieve anything other than make a few faux environmentalists feel better.
Building a new one will achieve the same benefits as the existing one.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7197  
Old Posted May 27, 2017, 11:00 PM
5seconds's Avatar
5seconds 5seconds is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by craner View Post
Man you're a great resource for just about anything associated with this project 5seconds.
So glad you are a contributor here - thanks again for sharing you're knowledge.
Thanks! It's no problem, I love talking about this stuff!
__________________
My Southwest Calgary Ring Road Blog: calgaryringroad.wordpress.com
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7198  
Old Posted May 29, 2017, 1:26 AM
suburbia suburbia is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 4,975
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5seconds View Post
The Nation did not want to lose that much land on an already restricted reserve, so would have accommodated the replacement, but not the extra that may have been required.
Sorry for the tangential question, but how many people are officially part of the Nation, and how many acres is it that you're considering constrained for them?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7199  
Old Posted May 29, 2017, 3:05 PM
DoubleK DoubleK is offline
#YYC
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 763
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5seconds View Post
A concern arose because I believe the replacement policy sometimes requires a 3:1 ratio, so taking up three times as much area with a wetland as was originally there.
Your belief is correct. I deal with this regularly.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7200  
Old Posted May 29, 2017, 3:47 PM
MalcolmTucker MalcolmTucker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 10,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by suburbia View Post
Sorry for the tangential question, but how many people are officially part of the Nation, and how many acres is it that you're considering constrained for them?
I wouldn't want to give up more of my land, to compensate for a project that is already on my previous land.

If the province is forced to buy the land under the dry reservoir in Springbank instead of buying easements, can put it somewhere proximate to there!
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 6:09 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.