HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #7481  
Old Posted May 15, 2019, 1:03 AM
milomilo milomilo is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,475
I've always said, I have no problem reserving a large ROW. My biggest issue was going ahead with a contract to build for the bigger road after they officially abandoned the plan. It's not like they said 'we don't think we'll need this, but maybe we might so we'll leave a median' - they abandoned the plans. I also think it was irresponsible to not even have considered previous to 2012 that there would be no need for the extra road, and costed out a smaller road.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7482  
Old Posted May 15, 2019, 2:19 AM
milomilo milomilo is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,475
But that was after a change of government - I don't blame him for that. I blame the prior administration, who would have had all the time needed to make the right decision.

Honestly, I just find it staggering how people are so blase about the waste of so much money, usually the same people who complain about taxes and the state of the roads. Here is an example of money just thrown away, but they say it's ok because future proofing, except it wasn't future proofing, it was incompetence.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7483  
Old Posted May 15, 2019, 3:01 AM
Corndogger Corndogger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5seconds View Post
If I seem pissy, it’s because I have spent a lot of time to understand and share good information about an issue that has been prone to misinformation for decades. It’s hard to spend years doing something right only to watch someone so easily do the opposite. Doing something right is hard, and spreading bad information is so very easy.

But I will say something; You’re right, I do need to do better. And I will, starting now.
Your research on this road is greatly appreciated by many. I find it really sad that Milo is putting in so much effort to create a false narrative of what happened. I'm also getting pissed off that he's basically calling the rest of liars. Just because he wasn't here during the time when the outer ring road was being discussed publicly by the government doesn't mean it didn't happen. What I find most annoying is his refusal to admit that it would have been beyond stupid to not acquire the extra land for future needs. I'd like to know what makes him think his ability to predict what will happen 50 years from now is better than the rest of us. Calgary has a long history of downplaying future road needs and then getting bit in the butt because of it. The province made the right decision. The fact that they had to acquire the land now in a one shot opportunity should have ended any arguments he has but he stubbornly clinks to the notion that the road will never be needed. Considering he thinks Deerfoot is fine in terms of capacity that probably isn't surprising.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7484  
Old Posted May 15, 2019, 3:11 AM
milomilo milomilo is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,475
It's not my ability to predict, it's the province's - they decided the outer ring road was not necessary and would never be built yet they decided to go ahead with the larger road. If they thought the inner lanes were still necessary, then they either did not abandon the plans (contrary to what we have been told) or they developed some other secret use for them that has not been shared. Maybe that's a cover up by the NDP, but we have no evidence of that.

All of what I am saying is based on the information available to us. I believe you that a map existed, but that is the extent of information, so we have no idea how much more than that was developed. And that's beside the point - they abandoned the plan. It doesn't matter if you think the 16 lane road is a good idea, the government in 2012 did not, but they built the road anyway. That is indefensible, unless as Acey states that it would be more expensive to redesign the road, despite having years to do so.

Last edited by milomilo; May 15, 2019 at 3:22 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7485  
Old Posted May 15, 2019, 3:33 AM
Corndogger Corndogger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,439
I had forgotten about the following. Note the date and note that Milo was bitching even back then.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...28#post7593328
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7486  
Old Posted May 15, 2019, 3:40 AM
milomilo milomilo is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,475
I remember it well, that's why I'm so confident you won't find any evidence. Look, I concede that there was conceptual planning before 2012. But that for all we know was little more than an idea, and what we do know is that after this conceptual planning they abandoned the idea. And it wasn't the NDP, it was the PCs. For the last 7 years, the outer ring road idea has been completely dead. It's possible a future government could resurrect it, but there logically has been no land assembly in the meantime so it wouldn't be an easy task. Along with being a waste of money.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7487  
Old Posted May 15, 2019, 4:15 AM
Corndogger Corndogger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,439
Here's proof that the outer ring road was not dead in 2012. Schedule 18 of the actual DBFO agreement which is dated August 24, 2016 mentions the outer ring road dozens of times. If the idea was dead in 2012 then why didn't the NDP remove references to it? As far as I'm concerned the idea was abandoned in 2017 by Mason. In 2012 it was the planning that was abandoned which makes perfect sense at the time as without a deal with the Tsuut'ina why bother continuing?

http://www.transportation.alberta.ca...Schedule18.pdf

Some key mentions.

Stage 1 shall also include the construction of bridge structures to span the Outer Ring Road carriageways to be constructed between the Stage 1 carriageways.

The Outer Ring Road consists of future carriageways in between the Calgary Ring Road carriageways with a design speed of 110 km/h and is subject to the Technical Requirements required for the Southwest Calgary Ring Road, contained herein. The Contractor shall carry out the Project so as to not negatively affect the design and construction of the future Outer Ring Road. No permanent infrastructure that will conflict with the Outer Ring Road is permitted. (p.3)

Median Width (as defined in the Highway Geometric Design Guide):

Future Outer Ring Road carriage ways ........................................... 23.2 m

Distance between edge of travel lanes on Ultimate Stage Calgary Ring Road and Outer Ring Road carriage ways ............................................... 28.2 m

Mainline ................................. no less than 23.2 m (pp. 11-12)

Stage 1 shall include the design and construction of the subgrade for the future Outer Ring Road express lanes located in the median from Highway 22X to west of 69 Street SW. The subgrade for the future Outer Ring Road shall be designed and constructed to be consistent with the pavement structure proposed for the Outer Ring Road in the Functional Plan. The Contractor shall not propose any permanent infrastructure that would infringe on the future express lanes nor the adjacent clear zones and transfer lanes. (p. 20)

*********

The above makes it rather obvious that the outer ring road is a lot more than just an idea.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7488  
Old Posted May 15, 2019, 5:15 AM
technomad's Avatar
technomad technomad is offline
commissar of cannabis
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alberia
Posts: 583
I'm half-convinced that the Calgary outer ring road plan was made just because Edmonton had one..
of course the big difference is that Edmonton Outer Ring Road already exists, albeit in-non freeway form (for now)
plus, because it already exists, the EORR also actually connects quite a few useful places, which helps with their more distributed commuting patterns

most of the yellow line plan makes me wonder, why? what problem are you trying to solve here?
is another ring road going to a better job of connecting people than simply extending the radial links further out would?

of course these plans evolve over time, but I'm pretty sure we'll see the TCH bypass (blue) HWY 2 bypass (red) built before any of the CORR project comes to pass
I'd give the orange HWY 22/8 link decent odds of becoming the SW-CORR too



and because the obvious may need pointing out, TCH bypass is the #1 reason why SW Stoney isn't overbuilt
__________________
“I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: Oh Lord, make my enemies ridiculous. And God granted it." - Voltaire
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7489  
Old Posted May 15, 2019, 8:52 AM
Corndogger Corndogger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,439
Here's more proof that the province did not kill the idea of building an outer ring road in 2012. This is from a SWCRR Open Forum held on October 7, 2014 that was recorded. Gary Lamb from Alberta Transportation mentions the outer ring road and that planning for it is part of the forward thinking that they like to do. Now I'm starting to wonder if the NDP was fully honest about what happened in 2012. Maybe they were just confused. Anyway, watch this part of the presentation for about 45 seconds. It one more piece of irrefutable evidence that what's being done is not overkill nor bad planning.

Video Link
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7490  
Old Posted May 15, 2019, 1:19 PM
milomilo milomilo is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,475
^^^ None of the above represents proof of a unified plan for an outer ring road. Sure, Gary Lamb mentioned a future road, but at that point they were locked into building those lanes, and he also said there was no intention to use them. It's much easier for him to say that, than the truth which is 'the previous administration designed a road with these bridges and extra lanes even though they didn't plan on ever using them'.

The rest are individual bypasses and expansions which may well be stand on their own merits, but are not any reason to build an additional 8 lane freeway down the middle of another 8 lane freeway.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7491  
Old Posted May 15, 2019, 1:25 PM
milomilo milomilo is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acey View Post
That's damning evidence.

But even if it weren't the case, even if the plans were not internally abandoned, we're making an awful lot of assumptions about the finality of the word "abandoned" in this context. We assume so much Alberta Transportation correspondence to be bullshit. For some reason, for the duration of this debate, we have assumed an absurd level of finality with the "abandoned" claim.

It doesn't take much digging to find stuff we've built that we said we weren't going to build, and vice versa. Grading for a future outer ring that we might not build doesn't even rank that highly.
"Damning evidence". It really isn't, it's exactly the problem I have. Of course the design document refers to the outer ring road, they are building those lanes right now!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7492  
Old Posted May 15, 2019, 1:32 PM
milomilo milomilo is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,475
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acey View Post
The most likely scenario, by quite a margin, is that the plan was not totally abandoned which is why no serious effort was given to a redesign. This is distinctly different than what you think happened, which is that the plan was abandoned and nobody gave a fuck. As much as you think this is a grand conspiracy, the far more likely scenario is that people involved were steadfast in their belief of an outer ring's value, and got their wish despite the public announcement that the outer ring was cancelled which nicely correlates with the Edmonton outer ring cancellation.

To an extent, that correlates to what I've said which is that the median ROW is not a total loss.
I never said it was a grand conspiracy! I said it was incompetence, it's corn who thinks this is an NDP cover up (even though it was not them that scrapped planning).

I actually think your reading of the situation is bang on there - people inside were so wedded to their pet project that they forced it through. And the government of the time didn't really care about money - after all this is the same government flying their kids around on government jets. So they just kept the larger design even though they knew it was pointless. What's a few hundred million between friends?

And I agree it's not a total loss, although one struggles to think of much to do with that much land. There's not really any justification to build a rail line out there and that would only take a small amount of the land, and the best ROW for a road is unlikely to be the same as a good ROW for a transit line.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7493  
Old Posted May 15, 2019, 4:02 PM
Tobyoby's Avatar
Tobyoby Tobyoby is offline
That's what she said
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Stampitectureville
Posts: 1,502
Quote:
Originally Posted by suburbia View Post
Agreed, though probably should have been said a pinch more diplomatically.

While I've found milomilo to get his/her back up a pinch quick in the past, generally I find her/him to be fair and level headed.

Toyboy on the other hand is rarely constructive, and only dives in to take shots.
I thought you were the one who regularly dove in to take pot shots?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7494  
Old Posted May 15, 2019, 6:54 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: 4,777
Does the contract for SE and NE Stoney have a similar clause as the NW leg did whereby they will add additional lanes as traffic levels rise? If so then how on earth has that not happened yet north of Peigan?
__________________
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe.

Albert Einstein
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7495  
Old Posted May 15, 2019, 7:35 PM
Corndogger Corndogger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
^^^ None of the above represents proof of a unified plan for an outer ring road. Sure, Gary Lamb mentioned a future road, but at that point they were locked into building those lanes, and he also said there was no intention to use them. It's much easier for him to say that, than the truth which is 'the previous administration designed a road with these bridges and extra lanes even though they didn't plan on ever using them'.

The rest are individual bypasses and expansions which may well be stand on their own merits, but are not any reason to build an additional 8 lane freeway down the middle of another 8 lane freeway.
Gary Lamb did not say there's no intention of using them. He said they didn't see a need to in the next 30 years. As pointed out several times the time frame for the need for an outer ring road is longer than 30 years according to the province's projections.

Your position that the outer ring road was killed in 2012 is clearly wrong yet you refuse to admit it. Now you're moving the goalposts every time you post and are starting to attribute your thoughts to the people involved. Overwhelming facts were presented--accept them and move on.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7496  
Old Posted May 15, 2019, 11:31 PM
milomilo milomilo is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,475
The minister's office straight up said that conceptual planning was abandoned - their words, not mine. If you think they are lying fine, I'm not going to change your mind on that.

You are also one of very few people that thinks building 16 lanes of roadway would be a good idea. I suspect you will be disappointed with that, the high quality 8 lane road being built should be fine for the foreseeable future. We would have to deliberately design the city poorly for 16 lanes there to be remotely justifiable. And since there will likely be roads carrying greater volumes, why are you not crying out for every other road to be 16 lanes?

If the province had done the correct thing in the first place and just built this as an 8 lane road and never teased you with this super cool 16 lane monstrosity, would you even have cared, or complained how undebuilt the road was? Not likely. It's only because of their incompetence that we are having this discussion.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7497  
Old Posted May 16, 2019, 5:36 AM
craner's Avatar
craner craner is offline
Go Tall or Go Home
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 5,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by lubicon View Post
Does the contract for SE and NE Stoney have a similar clause as the NW leg did whereby they will add additional lanes as traffic levels rise? If so then how on earth has that not happened yet north of Peigan?
Agreed. It's way undersized at this point.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7498  
Old Posted May 16, 2019, 5:56 AM
Corndogger Corndogger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by craner View Post
Agreed. It's way undersized at this point.
IIRC a few years ago or so the government admitted that section needed more capacity but claimed they didn't have the funds to do anything about it. Just how expensive would it be to add lanes. I believe when they added lanes to a rather large stretch in the NW the cost was just $14 million. I realize that's because they had done a lot of the prep work when they built that section but did they not have the consortiums that built the NE and SE legs do the same thing? It would have been ideal if the government had set aside money for such expansions so they could always meet their own standards.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7499  
Old Posted May 17, 2019, 8:19 PM
ggopher ggopher is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 139
The NE Ring Road is very undersized right now with only 4 lanes.

According to the official Technical Specifications:

Quote:
Shoulder Widths:
o Mainline
- Inside (4 and 6 Basic Lanes).................................... 2.5 m*
- Inside (8 Basic Lanes) ............................................. 3.0 m*
- Outside..................................................................... 3.0 m*
* Any shoulder width in Stage 1 on the pavement side to be widened first in future stages
must be 3.7m wide except on bridge structures. Note that the last lane to be constructed in
the future shall be the inside lane.

Shoulder and lane materials do not have to be the same, however the potential for future widening must be addressed in the design such that increased cost does not result at the time of any future widening.

The pavement structure design shall account for future widening as stipulated in the Functional Plan and Section 200 (Project Specifics). The design shall identify how the future expansion will be accomplished in a cost effective manner. The pavement design shall provide for the shoulder thickness on the side(s) proposed for future widening to provide structural capacity for use as a
portion of the future lane(s).

300.2.5 PROVISIONS FOR FUTURE STAGES
During design of the roadway elements, the Contractor shall be cognizant of the requirement for
future expansion through the addition of lanes or other elements as detailed in Section 200
(Project Specifics). Design and construction must feasibly allow for future economical
expansion through addition of lanes and other elements.
During design of the bridge structures, the Contractor shall be cognizant of the potential
requirement for future widening and/or lengthening of the bridge structures. When required, the
initial design and construction of the bridge structures shall consider provisions that feasibly
allow for future economical bridge structure widening and/or lengthening.
Vertical grade lines shall be set so that all vertical clearance requirements are met after any
anticipated bridge structure widening and/or lengthening or roadway rehabilitation has occurred.

Source: Schedule 18 Technical Requirements for NE Ring Road
The original contract included the grading for the ultimate stage to expand lanes into the median. It should be a relatively cost effective expansion to do now. Unfortunately there is no money at all.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7500  
Old Posted May 17, 2019, 9:02 PM
Mazrim's Avatar
Mazrim Mazrim is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 1,257
Wow, you don't check a thread in a few days and everything goes to hell. Sad to see this forum has lost more informative posters.
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 1:02 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.