TCH Route Through Calgary

[craner]

With the current work on 16th Avenue in Calgary there was some discussion about changing the designated Trans Canada Highway route through the city. Out driving on the weekend I came from the east city limit heading west on McKnight - John Laurie. I think this is a realistic option to turn into a free-flow TCH route as far as Sarcee Tr NW at which point it would have to head south to Crowchild (Hwy 1A) or further south across the river to link up with 16th Ave (not very likely). New connections to the TCH outside the city limits would be required but not insurmountable. I like the fact this route would pass close to the Airport, and there are some great views of the skyline, mountains, and the city which would leave a good impression on travelers. Widening and interchanges for John Laurie would be relatively simple along Nose Hill park.
If I was more software savy I would post a map, but sorry, I'm not. Feel free to do so for your proposal. Have fun with it.

[mersar]

In my opinion the only realistic route change for the TCH would be to do what Winnipeg did and make the ring road part of it. I'm all for upgrading McKnight and John Laurie, especially around the corner at 48th, but I wouldn't support making it the TCH. Most of the changes needed (and thankfully a number are coming) to McKnight would be needed even more if it were to be redesignated, probably to the tune of several hundred million dollars (interchange at Sarcee, Shagnappi, McKnight/John Laurie, potentially Centre Street, rebuilding the McKnight/Deerfoot, 12th Street, 19th Street, Barlow, and most of them are just about needed as it is currently)

[Boris2k7]

I have put this forward already, but I believe that upgrading already-existing highways to reroute the TCH down to Glenmore would be a reasonable solution.

Click to Enlarge


This is in recognition of the fact that, realistically, Glenmore is the only E-W route directly through Calgary that could be turned fully into a limited-access freeway. And that drivers, unless forced otherwise, will probably choose to go through the city than around it.

[Spocket]

Sorry to intrude but I doubt you'll ever see a re-route of the TCH through Calgary. When cities build circumferential highways (Winnipeg, Regina, for example) what usually happens is that two routes are created with the same designation. One is a city route and the other is the bypass route. Why that's done exactly I don't know but it appears to be the norm. Anyway, now that Calgary is building a bypass encircling most of the city , part of it at least will probably be designated as TCH. In that case, there's not really any point in re-routing the current TCH path through the city.

[Boris2k7]

Well, except that there IS a point in doing so, since unlike Winnipeg the ring road is very, very close to the edge of Calgary and people are more likely NOT to go all the way around. People use a bypass when the difference between that and the direct route appears to be negligible, and even better. Here, you will hit the ring road and you have the choice of going about 10Km directly through the city, 30Km around the city, or 5Km down to Glenmore and right through the city for the rest of the 10Km anyways. And if we want an E-W route that is built up to the highest standards (think German Autobahn), we might as well choose the primary route through the city and give it a reason to be that way.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by Boris2k7

Well, except that there IS a point in doing so, since unlike Winnipeg the ring road is very, very close to the edge of Calgary and people are more likely NOT to go all the way around.

The Perimeter Highway around Wpg (TCH 1A, basically) is a lot further out of the way than you realize. Hell, it even has stoplights on it, and people still take it. Most of it actually borders farmland that extends for kilometers towards the city.

Not that I'm adverse to another free-flow route through Calgary, but having lived with a slow inner-city TCH, it's a non-issue for the most part. When approaching Calgary from the east, we'll see 2 signs: Calgary (straight), and Banff (turn right and take the freeway). Anyone going through will figure it out pretty quick.

[Riise]

In my opinion I don't see the need for an inner-city east-west freeway. Though, if it was decided that one was indeed needed and a current roadway would be converted I would prefer Glenmore over McKnight. My reasoning behind this is that the Glenmore corridor couldn't be used for much more and a good number of sections are already at or near to motorway standard. On the other hand, McKnight has the potential to be a decent transit enabled urban corridor that could handle a decent amount of vehicular traffic. However, like Freeweed pointed out, we have already managed without an inner-city east-west freeway in the past and could continue to do so in the future.

The largest amount of inner-city east-west trips made are those made for commuting, a good portion of these trips, as well as those made for general purposes (i.e. shopping), could be taken off of the "road" if an east-west rapid transit corridor was established. Of course, that is in addition to a more multi-destinational Calgary Transit network/system. However, there would still be some trips that people would have to make by car as well as inner-city commercial trips.

I believe these could be handled by quality urban corridors that are built to handle arterial level, or close to, traffic volumes; think the new 16th. This could be made easier if we encouraged a change in the transportation industry. We could encourage, or even require through size restrictions, inner-city commercial traffic to utilize urban transport vehicles like Sprinters or narrow body freight trucks (GMC W and T-Series).

[Grendel]

Originally Posted by Boris2k7

Well, except that there IS a point in doing so, since unlike Winnipeg the ring road is very, very close to the edge of Calgary and people are more likely NOT to go all the way around. People use a bypass when the difference between that and the direct route appears to be negligible, and even better. Here, you will hit the ring road and you have the choice of going about 10Km directly through the city, 30Km around the city, or 5Km down to Glenmore and right through the city for the rest of the 10Km anyways. And if we want an E-W route that is built up to the highest standards (think German Autobahn), we might as well choose the primary route through the city and give it a reason to be that way.

Is it faster to get to Banff from YYC via Country Hills Bl, or 16 Ave? I would tend to think that 16 Ave is faster; however, when I worked at the car rental desk at the airport, it was the common belief (among the business travel set) that Country Hills Bl was the more direct route. I always put this down to the perception that you were making better progress due to the fact that CHB is wider, with less stoplights and in general, less congestion.

In the same way, I think that when it's built, people will prefer to take the ring road rather than the TCH through the city, if only because people in cars tend to prefer freeways to boulevards.
Speaking as someone who has had the occasion to travel across the country several times by road, I take the detour around Winnipeg's ring road every time, if only to avoid having to deal with all the problems inherent in urban road systems: gridlock, car accidents, breakdowns, shopping centre rushes, drive by shootings , unexpected navigation problems, etc etc.

[Boris2k7]

Originally Posted by Grendel

Is it faster to get to Banff from YYC via Country Hills Bl, or 16 Ave? I would tend to think that 16 Ave is faster; however, when I worked at the car rental desk at the airport, it was the common belief (among the business travel set) that Country Hills Bl was the more direct route. I always put this down to the perception that you were making better progress due to the fact that CHB is wider, with less stoplights and in general, less congestion.

Well, I would asume from YYC it would be CHB... but people coming west on the Transcanada aren't going to be hitting the Ring Road at YYC, they are going to be hitting it at 16th Ave. I don't really know that much about what those people's perceptions really would be, but those are the assumptions that my quick and dirty model was based off of. I think the biggest piece of rational for providing an actual E-W freeway, using existing routes that are already freeway-like, is that it would cut off and future expansions of said routes, lower their traffic (in addition to the travellers whom would be going the long way around on Stoney), and enable the city to "localize" the roads once again by putting in boulevards, increasing pedestrian connections, throwing in transit and bike lanes, etc.

[Rise_of_the_West]

Interesting idea Boris. This would definitly speed up travel on the TCH through the city, particularly if Glenmore is transformed into a freeway with higher speed limit. It would definitly involve quite a bit of cost, but if it was implemented as part of the planned Glenmore trail upgrades (particularly widening the west section), then it might be feasable.

You may not even have to extend it that far west either. Using Sarcee Trail you would only have 3 intersections (which should have been overpasses in the first place) to deal with between glenmore and the current TCH

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by Grendel

Is it faster to get to Banff from YYC via Country Hills Bl, or 16 Ave?

Neither. McKnight and John Laurie, then duck down to Crowchild, then down Stoney, is much faster.

CHB is a gigantic parking lot any time the sun is above the horizon.

[freeweed]

From TCH/NE ring road intersection to TCH/Stoney intersection, as measured on Google Earth:

16th Ave direct - 22.7km
Stoney trail ring road (NE & NW) - 40.4km

As the ring road will be (virtually) free-flow and 80kph, you'd have to average at least 40kph to make 16th Ave even compete in terms of time.

I don't think anyone has ever managed to average 40kph on 16th Ave. That's hitting damn near every light green. There are a LOT of 50 sections on that road. I'd be surprised if a person averaged 30.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by freeweed

From TCH/NE ring road intersection to TCH/Stoney intersection, as measured on Google Earth:

16th Ave direct - 22.7km
Stoney trail ring road (NE & NW) - 40.4km

As the ring road will be (virtually) free-flow and 80kph, you'd have to average at least 40kph to make 16th Ave even compete in terms of time.

I don't think anyone has ever managed to average 40kph on 16th Ave. That's hitting damn near every light green. There are a LOT of 50 sections on that road. I'd be surprised if a person averaged 30.

Maybe at 3:00 AM, you'd still have to be kind of lucky. Also, won't much of the completed ring road have a speed limit higher than 80?

One problem with Glenmore, it can't be used for a lot of trucking as dangerous goods are not allowed over the causeway.

[mersar]

Completed ring road is supposed to be 100km/h initially. Design speed for most was 110 but until all the traffic lights are gone I wouldn't expect to see it increased.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by mersar

Completed ring road is supposed to be 100km/h initially. Design speed for most was 110 but until all the traffic lights are gone I wouldn't expect to see it increased.

Seriously?? I figured I'd go with the conservative estimate at 80.

Surprising we'll see a 100 road with lights, but I guess the Deerfoot was like that too until recently.

OK, so the ring road will be MUCH faster than 16th, not just a lot faster.

[mersar]

Crowchild is 90 with lights on the NW edge of the city, and I wouldn't expect to see Stoney approaching the Nose Hill interchange to go up from 80 just due to the hill.

Perhaps one of the Edmonton forumers can correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't most of AHD 100km/h along the southern edge of the city?

[freeweed]

K, and as further comparison:

Boris' neat idea through Glenmore: 68.4km.

It adds some distance on the existing TCH from my earlier measurements, so here's the other 2 options:

16th Ave: 62km
Ring Road: 79km

Heading a ways up north on the ring road is about 10km longer than ducking down through Glenmore. Not sure if 10km shorter for that kind of distance is worth the extra roadwork involved in upgrading Glenmore (and adding more highway on either end to join with the TCH. But I must admit, this is the first time I've ever seen Boris argue for more car-friendly driving within the city, so I'm all for it if he is.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by mersar

Crowchild is 90 with lights on the NW edge of the city, and I wouldn't expect to see Stoney approaching the Nose Hill interchange to go up from 80 just due to the hill.

You're right. And it makes sense. I still can't get over the impending fear that planners are going to do the stupid thing and make roads far less efficient than they could be.

You might say it's how I was raised.

You've made my day though - I figure it'll take me roughly 15 minutes from my door to the Airport now. That's fantastic.

[Zilla]

I understand that routing the TCH in the vicinity of McKnight was a preferred option for TCH planners when it was built in the 50s, but the 16th Avenue businesses lobbied for the current route, fearing loss of business traffic. It was a much smaller city back then, eh?

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by Zilla

I understand that routing the TCH in the vicinity of McKnight was a preferred option for TCH planners when it was built in the 50s, but the 16th Avenue businesses lobbied for the current route, fearing loss of business traffic. It was a much smaller city back then, eh?

This is actually a concern that's been brought up with every single bypass/ring road project I've ever heard of. Local businesses sure think people will take the roundabout way instead of the "direct" route.

I'm actually surprised we haven't heard much of anything along these lines w.r.t. our ring road - maybe adult video shops and pawn shops aren't too worried about the loss of highway traffic. Seriously though, I'm surprised the Banff Trail strip hasn't been complaining - they must see a fair chunk of the drive-through business.