Calgary Roads

[sim]

Originally Posted by Ferreth

As of Jan 31st:

96th Ave Construction i6094 by ferreth, on Flickr

Ahh, why are they building a bridge there when there is another one 1 km further up!!! Ahhh! Silly hall!

[ByeByeBaby]

Ahh, why are they building a bridge there when there is another one 1 km further up!!! Ahhh! Silly hall!

What a complete waste of MY/OUR money. The bridge wasn't needed nor wanted. I'd bet that 80% of Calgary's population never sets foot on that bridge. This bridge is another great example of the need for citizens to demand responsibility and accountability by those we put in charge of our tax dollars.

[suburb]

Originally Posted by Ferreth

As of Jan 31st:
96th Ave Construction i6094 by ferreth, on Flickr

Thanks! That is coming across very nicely.

Originally Posted by sim

Ahh, why are they building a bridge there when there is another one 1 km further up!!! Ahhh! Silly hall!

Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby

What a complete waste of MY/OUR money. The bridge wasn't needed nor wanted. I'd bet that 80% of Calgary's population never sets foot on that bridge. This bridge is another great example of the need for citizens to demand responsibility and accountability by those we put in charge of our tax dollars.

These plans are from prior municipal administrations, but speaking quite frankly, they are very much needed.

1. Connects Aurora business park to the airport
2. De-loads Beddington Trail from the added load Aurora business park will add
3. Provides a direct connection from the centre street coordidor to the airport, critical to public transit planning
4. Is a cross town connector from the NE to the NW

Even as the birds fly it is much more than 1 km to country hills. Distances on the current roads network from Aurora Business park would be heading West 1-2km, north 2km (curved section of HH Blvd), West 1km to get to the same longtitude that you started, an extra 1km to get to Deerfoot (as Deerfoot is angled to the East in that area) and then down 2km+ on the non-orthogonal section on Deerfoot. All of those were just the 'extra' portions, and discounting the travel along the latitude line from the business park to the other side of Deerfoot. Total extra would be 7-8km, and that does't include the extra lights or the fact that those roads weren't made for Aurora business park traffic.

Anyway - I've given you guys benefit of the doubt by trying to provide a proper answer, but I highly suspect you guys are 'forum terrorists' and really have no clue about Calgary's roads.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by suburb

These plans are from prior municipal administrations, but speaking quite frankly, they are very much needed.

Anyway - I've given you guys benefit of the doubt by trying to provide a proper answer, but I highly suspect you guys are 'forum terrorists' and really have no clue about Calgary's roads.

Swing and a miss.

[Rusty van Reddick]

Suburb, they're joking.

[fusili]

I believe the Airport Trail bridge is absolutely necessary. Not only from a road connectivity standpoint, but also because it gives us a future connection between the Airport and whatever transit will end up at Aurora Park. Even if it is a Nose Creek Alignment, I think it is prudent to have the potential transit connection to the airport.

As much as I come off as anti-roads, there are definitely some road improvements that I see as useful, such as the Airport Tunnel, or the widening of 52nd Street SE.

[Innersoul1]

I would agreed that it is a much needed bridge. I don't live in that part of the city but when I do drive through that area Country Hills Blvd. is a mess. It's really congested and is a slow slog to get over to Beddington BLVD. As far as E/W accessibility and airport accessibillity it's much needed.

[kw5150]

Originally Posted by Ferreth

As of Jan 31st:

96th Ave Construction i6094 by ferreth, on Flickr

Lol......the comments on this were hilarious! Its funny, I will probably only use that bridge once but I still support it.

How did this peace bridge thing get so bent out of shape? Stupid Rick Bell and the Sun.

[Ramsayfarian]

Originally Posted by kw5150

Lol......the comments on this were hilarious! Its funny, I will probably only use that bridge once but I still support it.

How did this peace bridge thing get so bent out of shape? Stupid Rick Bell and the Sun.

I can't speak for the rest of the mouth breathers, but my feelings for the Peace Bridge have nothing to do with Rick Bell or The Sun. Even our esteemed Mayor, thinks The Peace Bridge wasn't needed at that location and that the City acted inappropriately. However that's all water under the bridge now.

[kw5150]

Originally Posted by Ramsayfarian

I can't speak for the rest of the mouth breathers, but my feelings for the Peace Bridge have nothing to do with Rick Bell or The Sun. Even our esteemed Mayor, thinks The Peace Bridge wasn't needed at that location and that the City acted inappropriately. However that's all water under the bridge now.

What is wrong with the location again? Refresh my memory.

[Ramsayfarian]

Originally Posted by kw5150

What is wrong with the location again? Refresh my memory.

What's the point? As you've already drunk the kool-aid and the bridge is in place.

<Insert arguing on the internet is like the special olympics pic here>

[Yahoo]

Originally Posted by tmjr

As I live in Scenic Acres, the intersections I would love to see changed to roundabouts are:

• The two lights at the Stoney-Scenic Acres/Tuscany interchange
• The three lights on Nose Hill just south of Crowchild
• The intersection just before the bus gates in the Crowfoot LRT station south parking lot
• The intersection at Scenic Acres Blvd and Scenic Acres/Scurfield Dr. That one was changed from a 4-way stop to traffic lights just after we moved into Scenic Acres; I guess traffic studies indicated that a traffic light was necessary there, but the 4-way stop seemed to be working fine (at least IMHO).

I also live in Scenic Acres and would love to see a roundabout at each end of the Stoney Trail interchange. I've only ever driven through a roundabout once myself (sheltered life I guess), but it worked well. Considering that the plan is to eventually tear part of it up anyway when they do the final Stoney trail buildout it would be a good time to make the change. They have so much wasted pavement in the areas of the interchanges I think they made some pretty poor choices. For example having yields when merge lanes could have been added. Or people exiting right having to wait at a light because of lack of a turn lane. The light timing is awful and the traffic volume is small enough that a one lane roundabout would be perfect.

I agree that the 4-way stop worked fine in Scenic Acres Blvd. I don't know if there were studies, it just seemed like a few people whined and made a big deal out of getting a traffic light put in. I've never seen a high volume of traffic at that intersection - but I have seem people run stop signs within the district. I guess visitors just sometimes don't pay attention in districts and miss the stop signs, so perhaps that's a good reason to have lights.

I think small 1 lane roundabouts make the most sense. I'm not a fan of the big multilane traffic circles and would be horrified if the city started thinking of using them as a replacement for building interchanges on major roadways. When traffic volumes are high I don't think circles are the way to go.

Some of your other suggested roads I'm not sure if there would be too much traffic volume or enough land to build workable roundabouts.

[Yahoo]

Originally Posted by Innersoul1

I would agreed that it is a much needed bridge. I don't live in that part of the city but when I do drive through that area Country Hills Blvd. is a mess. It's really congested and is a slow slog to get over to Beddington BLVD. As far as E/W accessibility and airport accessibillity it's much needed.

Country Hills Blvd is a perfect example of a poorly planned roadway. You don't purposely under-build a main new road. It's one of the relatively newest roads in the city but for years the speed-limit was 50, 60, 70, and 80 kph depending where you were. It has inconsistent designs all along the road. Some places left room for new lanes where in others they allowed houses to be built right on the edge of the roadway. 100 years from now do you want to bet the city will be looking at buying up those houses and cursing us for such poor planning?

When we build new main roads we really need to leave room for future lanes, trees, bike & walking paths, trees, utility corridors, trees, and even room for trains or some sort of transit (and trees). At least on anything that is a main road. (On Stoney they pretty much did it right except in areas around Nose Hill & Scenic Acres - but I'm still baffled why the northeast swings so far northeast and didn't just curve through what appears to be a giant empty field)

[suburb]

Originally Posted by Yahoo

Country Hills Blvd is a perfect example of a poorly planned roadway. You don't purposely under-build a main new road. It's one of the relatively newest roads in the city but for years the speed-limit was 50, 60, 70, and 80 kph depending where you were. It has inconsistent designs all along the road. Some places left room for new lanes where in others they allowed houses to be built right on the edge of the roadway. 100 years from now do you want to bet the city will be looking at buying up those houses and cursing us for such poor planning?

When we build new main roads we really need to leave room for future lanes, trees, bike & walking paths, trees, utility corridors, trees, and even room for trains or some sort of transit (and trees). At least on anything that is a main road. (On Stoney they pretty much did it right except in areas around Nose Hill & Scenic Acres - but I'm still baffled why the northeast swings so far northeast and didn't just curve through what appears to be a giant empty field)

I do agree that it has inconsistencies, but it was never meant to be a freeway needing expansion. Stoney Trail was meant for that. If all roads in the city were like Stoney Trail, we'd be looking like Dallas IE the pig under the lipstick

[Yahoo]

Originally Posted by suburb

I do agree that it has inconsistencies, but it was never meant to be a freeway needing expansion. Stoney Trail was meant for that. If all roads in the city were like Stoney Trail, we'd be looking like Dallas IE the pig under the lipstick

I guess I overstated my wishes since it wouldn't be practical to leave too much room on many NEW main roads, but what we're doing now isn't good enough.

Country Hills Blvd (CHB) was never meant to be a freeway but in any case we should have assumed that we will eventually need 3-4 lanes each way and some land for future bike paths, bus lanes or LRT lines. And use the same speed limit and building standards for the entire road since it was built on virgin land. We had a blank slate on CHB and blew it. (Nose Hill drive has the same issues -it was a gravel road out in the country and has been modified dozens of times over the years because it wasn't built right the first time). Even the city admitted they underestimated what was needed on CHB. Who knows, if CHB was built properly perhaps the airport tunnel could have been unnecessary.

I think the city assumed that when Stoney was built it would almost make CHB unneeded except for local traffic. This of course was wrong. It will always be a major east-west roadway because of the thousands of people that live around it. It's much better in my opinion if we build a bunch of decent but smaller main roads in the city rather than forcing traffic onto one or two big roads. If you just build a few main routes you end up needing these massive congested freeways as the population grows. Imagine Calgary at 3-5 million people using the road system we have now. I'd sooner see a decent CHB and Stoney Trail north then Stoney being upgraded to 10 lanes each way. It's not something for us to worry about, but we might as well make things better for future generations.

I don't find it at all attractive to have houses right along main roads. And it isn't just the ugly siding and lack of trees. It severely limits future generations. A thoughtful plan now is better than a controversy in 100 years. Calgary is lucky in that we do have room around most edges of the city and at least for the new roads we can plan for the future.

I don't see Dallas as a pig under lipstick - at least from the pictures posted here. Freeways and main roads may not be pretty but if you do build them at least keep housing away from the edges. Roads are like sewage treatment plants - necessary, so if we build them we should at least leave room for expansion. And the only way to pretty them up is with bike paths and trees - which don't fit if you don't leave room.

[kw5150]

Originally Posted by Ramsayfarian

What's the point? As you've already drunk the kool-aid and the bridge is in place.

<Insert arguing on the internet is like the special olympics pic here>

zaclee

[ByeByeBaby]

Anyway - I've given you guys benefit of the doubt by trying to provide a proper answer, but I highly suspect you guys are 'forum terrorists' and really have no clue about Calgary's roads.

Sorry to have troubled you; I agree with you 100% on it - 96th is clearly a key roadway. I thought the joke was obvious; I was just quoting some Herald reader comments on that other bridge.

Originally Posted by Yahoo

Country Hills Blvd (CHB) was never meant to be a freeway but in any case we should have assumed that we will eventually need 3-4 lanes each way and some land for future bike paths, bus lanes or LRT lines. <snip> Even the city admitted they underestimated what was needed on CHB. Who knows, if CHB was built properly perhaps the airport tunnel could have been unnecessary.

I don't think CHB -- talking about Stoney to Deerfoot; obviously east of Deerfoot is a totally different situation -- will ever be over 3 lanes anywhere, and probably won't need more than 2 for most of it's length. The communities around it are already developed, except for a few lots here and there. The rest of the northern communities to develop in the future will be on the other side of a freeway. The traffic growth from here on out will be pretty minor; certainly not a doubling in volume to warrant 4 lanes, unless Stoney (which has crazy room for expansion) isn't expanded, but that's just silly.

Where did the City admit they underestimated what was needed on CHB? I don't remember hearing this.

No idea where anyone would get the idea that CHB, at any number of lanes, would be a good replacement for 96th Ave.

[Yahoo]

Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby

Where did the City admit they underestimated what was needed on CHB? I don't remember hearing this.

I don't recall if I read it or heard it on the news but I believe the interchange at Beddington/CHB was needed years ahead of schedule because they underestimated the traffic volume. Considering the young age of the CHB roadway - needing to upgrade it to 6 lanes in sections, not long after it was already upgraded, shows that it wasn't adequately thought out. Even in the NW section, around say Superstore, there can be some pretty silly traffic jams even on the weekend - traffic jams that won't be getting smaller as the city grows. Traffic jams that could have been avoided with a wider roadway built when there was nothing there but cows and gophers. The area will likely never need an interchange, but it could already use another lane, or at least some long merge and exit lanes.

You see here for example the city mentioning widening CHB to 6 lanes, which isn't even possible further down the road (without buying houses - will we ever learn? lol).

Stoney, like Deerfoot, will someday become maddeningly crowded and need an upgrade. And we all know that road upgrades often happen decades after they are needed. CHB will be the obvious alternative route when people start avoiding Stoney like they avoid Deerfoot.

From the City of Calgary website:
http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation...-Widening.aspx

http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation...er_jan2006.pdf

It's hard to imagine sometimes how the city has grown. I can remember when Crowchild Trail north was 2 lanes by the university (lol - I mean the busy parts that aren't still 2 lanes). But someone was thinking ahead when they left room for both an LRT line and multi-lane roadway in the far northern sections. They even have some room for trees and a bikepath on the hill if that ever makes sense. Perhaps the didn't think about a city of 3-5 million which I'm sure Calgary will ultimately become, but it was better thought out than usual.

In any case I do my part and rarely use CHB now that Stoney NE is open. I only turn onto CHB as it leaves the city when going to Drumheller. Not that I couldn't take CHB all the way, but it's just such a joy to drive Stoney and it has been so painful to take CHB.

[5seconds]

Talking of roundabouts, I never knew that the Elbow Drive/Landsdown Avenue intersection was a roundabout 50 years ago. I always knew it was a strange intersection, but never it never occurred to me why.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...1482%2C5197661

http://maps.google.ca/?ll=51.016758,...09645&t=h&z=17

[kw5150]

Even a baby could navigate a roundabout, Im not sure why people have such a hard time with them.