HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #7441  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2018, 1:15 AM
milomilo milomilo is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5seconds View Post
'It seems outrageous': Engineer says province grossly overbuilding southwest ring road

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-...thwest-section
Glad someone agrees with what I have been saying. Those inner lanes are a pointless waste of money that will only ever be useful if we deliberately build a bad city that requires them. An 8-10 lane road with no express lanes would be more than sufficient for any future we can plan for.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7442  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2018, 1:17 AM
milomilo milomilo is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,133
I did email the minister a while back, but it didn't really shed much light:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Minister's assistant
Thank you for your August 16, 2017 email regarding the Southwest Calgary Ring Road and the Government of Alberta’s approach to outer ring roads. As the Ministerial Assistant to Honourable Brian Mason, Minister of Transportation, I am able to provide the following information.



Conceptual planning for outer ring roads around Edmonton and Calgary occurred in the early 2000s and was halted in 2012.



The area southwest of Calgary is mostly developed within the city limits; therefore, land was required from the Tsuut’ina Nation for the initial build of Southwest Calgary Ring Road, and any other capacity improvements that may be required in the future. At this time, the long-term configuration of the transportation corridor through this area is not yet determined, but the lanes currently being constructed allow for the future addition of transportation options, including transit and active transportation.



In comparing freeway construction costs, the increased cost of a collector/distributor freeway is generally due to building longer bridges than initially needed, in order to accommodate future expansion. Constructing longer bridges involves higher initial costs, but is a cost-effective strategy when future expansion is anticipated, as these bridges do not need to be lengthened when the freeway is expanded. This approach also minimizes future traffic disruptions during any expansion work.



If you have any further questions, please contact Michal Pylko, Director of Highway and Roadside Planning. Mr. Pylko can be reached toll-free at 310-0000, then 780‑984‑2916, or at michal.pylko@gov.ab.ca.



Thank you for taking the time to write. I hope this information is helpful.



Sincerely,



Jennifer D. Burgess

Ministerial Assistant
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7443  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2018, 11:02 PM
Mazrim's Avatar
Mazrim Mazrim is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 1,232
I like how they conveniently sneak in that this engineer lives in Discovery Ridge partway through the article. Very objective look at things, I'm sure.

God forbid we ever do any future proofing of anything. By the way, what happened to all those flying cars we were supposed to be using that they predicted in the 60s?

EDIT: I was wondering - did they try and future proof Highway 2 between Leduc and Edmonton because of property issues as well? Obviously it hasn't yet seen any use but I would be curious to know the thought process there.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7444  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2018, 12:56 AM
Corndogger Corndogger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazrim View Post
I like how they conveniently sneak in that this engineer lives in Discovery Ridge partway through the article. Very objective look at things, I'm sure.

God forbid we ever do any future proofing of anything. By the way, what happened to all those flying cars we were supposed to be using that they predicted in the 60s?

EDIT: I was wondering - did they try and future proof Highway 2 between Leduc and Edmonton because of property issues as well? Obviously it hasn't yet seen any use but I would be curious to know the thought process there.
I'd like to know why this engineer never said anything during the planning process for this leg? It's not like the province didn't send out a ton of info and hold numerous open houses on the project. The timing of his intervention makes me wonder if he isn't being paid by YYC Cares to advocate against the project.

IIRC the article said he was a structural engineer. Do structural engineers normally have anything to do with road network planning?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7445  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2018, 1:27 AM
milomilo milomilo is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazrim View Post
I like how they conveniently sneak in that this engineer lives in Discovery Ridge partway through the article. Very objective look at things, I'm sure.

God forbid we ever do any future proofing of anything. By the way, what happened to all those flying cars we were supposed to be using that they predicted in the 60s?

EDIT: I was wondering - did they try and future proof Highway 2 between Leduc and Edmonton because of property issues as well? Obviously it hasn't yet seen any use but I would be curious to know the thought process there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corndogger View Post
I'd like to know why this engineer never said anything during the planning process for this leg? It's not like the province didn't send out a ton of info and hold numerous open houses on the project. The timing of his intervention makes me wonder if he isn't being paid by YYC Cares to advocate against the project.

IIRC the article said he was a structural engineer. Do structural engineers normally have anything to do with road network planning?
I'm no fan of the NIMBYs in the SW, but are you aware of what he is specifically talking about? This is planning for a whole extra ring road inside of the one currently being built. It's not future proofing, it's needless waste. No projections would ever require the volumes that would justify a 16 lane collector express freeway in that area.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7446  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2018, 5:38 AM
craner's Avatar
craner craner is offline
Go Tall or Go Home
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,876
^ That's sooo awesome - Do it Now !
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7447  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2018, 7:14 AM
Corndogger Corndogger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,254
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
I'm no fan of the NIMBYs in the SW, but are you aware of what he is specifically talking about? This is planning for a whole extra ring road inside of the one currently being built. It's not future proofing, it's needless waste. No projections would ever require the volumes that would justify a 16 lane collector express freeway in that area.
Anyone who's actually been paying attention to this project has known about these plans for a long time. You would also know why the road has to be that big in that area. Since you and others against this projects don't know the history and reasoning behind the scope of the project why would you expect anyone to believe that you know the area will NEVER require the capacity they are proposing? There are plenty of examples in Calgary where we were told roads would be able to handle the volumes they were designed for well into the future only to find out a few short years later they were already reaching capacity levels that allowed for relatively free movement of vehicles. The SWRR will likely have 100K/day shortly after the west leg is done. The 30 year forecast is a joke.

One other point. A lot more roads in Calgary need a CD system for safety and efficiency. It's time we start building big city roads and stop catering to special interest groups.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7448  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2018, 7:18 AM
Corndogger Corndogger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,254
Quote:
Originally Posted by craner View Post
^ That's sooo awesome - Do it Now !
Build the west leg first and expand the NE leg and then build the rest of the SW part. For good measure throw in a five level stack so we can say we're the first in the nation to have one.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7449  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2018, 5:07 PM
milomilo milomilo is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corndogger View Post
Anyone who's actually been paying attention to this project has known about these plans for a long time. You would also know why the road has to be that big in that area. Since you and others against this projects don't know the history and reasoning behind the scope of the project why would you expect anyone to believe that you know the area will NEVER require the capacity they are proposing? There are plenty of examples in Calgary where we were told roads would be able to handle the volumes they were designed for well into the future only to find out a few short years later they were already reaching capacity levels that allowed for relatively free movement of vehicles. The SWRR will likely have 100K/day shortly after the west leg is done. The 30 year forecast is a joke.

One other point. A lot more roads in Calgary need a CD system for safety and efficiency. It's time we start building big city roads and stop catering to special interest groups.
My posts have never said anything to indicate I am against the SWRR, I have always been supportive of it and am glad it's getting built, and hopefully the remaining section is built shortly after. What I am opposed to is needless government waste, a position supported by most Calgarians but somehow lacking when it comes to arenas and pointless overbuilding.

The government have stated they have no plans to build an outer ring road, they knew this in 2012 yet they still built the SWRR with provision to include it. They also project relatively light usage of the road out until 2050, less than half of what Deerfoot will carry on a much smaller and worse designed road. If you don't believe them, fine, but it's the only trustworthy data we have and the only data they will be using to decide how big of a road to build. That said, I think we can all be pretty confident the SW will remain the least used section of the ringroad, so why would we choose to give that section a C/D system and not the rest of the ringroad which will be more heavily used?

As you pointed out though, this is all water under the bridge. The time to be opposed to this was years ago as to change it now would be an even bigger waste. I need to start being more vocal on this as it's not the first time I've seen a huge mistake which is largely unnoticed, but I don't have the direct line to the media that the busybody NIMBYs in the SW do.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7450  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2018, 7:00 PM
5seconds's Avatar
5seconds 5seconds is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,614
I think securing the land was a good idea, but I can see why building the interchange bridges to accommodate 16 lanes might be a questionable move. By the time it's needed, I cant help but think that the infrastructure would be in need of rehabilitation or replacement anyway, and could be rebuilt at that time to accommodate either new lanes or new modes using that corridor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
I think we can all be pretty confident the SW will remain the least used section of the ringroad.
I disagree with this. It is directly adjacent to communities containing thousands of drivers, most of whom are desperate for an alternate route to cross the Elbow river. Throw in Nation developments, and I think it will fill the needs of the pent-up demand that's already there, and then generate a good deal more just by being open.
__________________
My Southwest Calgary Ring Road Blog: calgaryringroad.wordpress.com

Last edited by 5seconds; Jan 21, 2018 at 7:37 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7451  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2018, 7:40 PM
milomilo milomilo is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5seconds View Post
I think securing the land was a good idea, but I can see why building the interchange bridges to accommodate 16 lanes might be a questionable move. By the time it's needed, I cant help but think that the infrastructure would be in need of rehabilitation or replacement anyway, and could be rebuilt at that time to accommodate either new lanes or new modes using that corridor.
I agree. In the highly unlikely event that we absolutely, no other option, need to build a 16 lane C/D there, then rebuilding the overpasses is still possible. Someone posted on here once that the 'time value' of money that is assumed when building infrastructure is something like 5% per year. So spending $100M today costs $1 billion+ 50 years from now. Whatever additional money we are spending to 'future proof' this road would have been much better spent on infrastructure we need today.

Still though, I think the idea that we must plan for a road that big in the future is absurd. We have the power to build the city we want, and the only way a road of that size would be required is if we built two more Calgary sized cities on either end of it. We would have failed spectacularly if we end up in a situation we have built this road for.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7452  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2018, 7:51 PM
milomilo milomilo is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5seconds View Post
I disagree with this. It is directly adjacent to communities containing thousands of drivers, most of whom are desperate for an alternate route to cross the Elbow river. Throw in Nation developments, and I think it will fill the needs of the pent-up demand that's already there, and then generate a good deal more just by being open.
It will be interesting to see how things change once that area is opened up with much more accessibility. But as I see it, along with intracity traffic, the NW and NE sections are heavily used as they serve as a bypass for regional/national east-west traffic, and similarly the NE and SE sections serve as a bypass for north-south traffic. The amount of traffic coming from the south headed west is not as significant as the other flows I mentioned, at least for now, so I can't see it being as heavily trafficked.

I could be wrong though and perhaps if the TCH was re-routed to a more south alignment things would change.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7453  
Old Posted Jan 22, 2018, 2:41 AM
craner's Avatar
craner craner is offline
Go Tall or Go Home
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,876
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5seconds View Post
I think securing the land was a good idea, but I can see why building the interchange bridges to accommodate 16 lanes might be a questionable move. By the time it's needed, I cant help but think that the infrastructure would be in need of rehabilitation or replacement anyway, and could be rebuilt at that time to accommodate either new lanes or new modes using that corridor.
This I completley agree with (without my tougue in cheek).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7454  
Old Posted Jan 22, 2018, 4:40 AM
speedog's Avatar
speedog speedog is offline
Moran supreme
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
It will be interesting to see how things change once that area is opened up with much more accessibility. But as I see it, along with intracity traffic, the NW and NE sections are heavily used as they serve as a bypass for regional/national east-west traffic, and similarly the NE and SE sections serve as a bypass for north-south traffic. The amount of traffic coming from the south headed west is not as significant as the other flows I mentioned, at least for now, so I can't see it being as heavily trafficked.

I could be wrong though and perhaps if the TCH was re-routed to a more south alignment things would change.
Something to ponder...



From http://calgaryringroad.wordpress.com
__________________
Just a wee bit below average prairie boy in Canada's third largest city and fourth largest CMA
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7455  
Old Posted Jan 22, 2018, 8:48 PM
lubicon's Avatar
lubicon lubicon is offline
Suburban dweller
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Calgary - our road planners are as bad as yours Edmonton
Posts: 4,581
Quote:
Originally Posted by speedog View Post
Something to ponder...



From http://calgaryringroad.wordpress.com
Not sure this is necessary as drawn, but for sure the one thing they need to do is bypass Strathmore completely. The town keeps growing and adding traffic lights along the TCH.
__________________
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe.

Albert Einstein
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7456  
Old Posted Jan 23, 2018, 6:22 AM
craner's Avatar
craner craner is offline
Go Tall or Go Home
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,876
^ I like this - any indication what the time frame for this is - 50+ years ?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7457  
Old Posted Jan 23, 2018, 3:41 PM
5seconds's Avatar
5seconds 5seconds is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,614
So it looks like the people behind YYCcares are now attacking the ring road plan from another angle. This time on the Glenmore-37th street side. Stay tuned.
__________________
My Southwest Calgary Ring Road Blog: calgaryringroad.wordpress.com
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7458  
Old Posted Jan 23, 2018, 5:09 PM
DoubleK DoubleK is offline
#YYC
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 753
Wow. When will this stop? Whose interests do they think they are representing?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7459  
Old Posted Jan 23, 2018, 6:39 PM
dmuzika dmuzika is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 290
Quote:
Originally Posted by lubicon View Post
Not sure this is necessary as drawn, but for sure the one thing they need to do is bypass Strathmore completely. The town keeps growing and adding traffic lights along the TCH.
In later stages of the study, including the Executive Summary, the province scaled the scope back to a simple bypass for Strathmore (similar to those around Vegreville and Portage La Prairie). The corners between Strathmore and Gliechen remain, but realistically they should have been dealt with when TCH 1 was twinned in the 1980s.

If there was a connection that tied in the Strathmore Bypass to Hwy 560, then TCH 1 could follow Glenmore Trail through Calgary, an upgrade from 16 Ave.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7460  
Old Posted Jan 23, 2018, 10:32 PM
Mazrim's Avatar
Mazrim Mazrim is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 1,232
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5seconds View Post
So it looks like the people behind YYCcares are now attacking the ring road plan from another angle. This time on the Glenmore-37th street side. Stay tuned.
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 5:30 AM.

     

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