HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #7061  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2016, 1:21 AM
milomilo milomilo is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,911
What could be more feasible (if desired) is the Texan style collector express, which is also sort of in place between Shaganappi and 40th Ave on Crowchild, where the collectors are more like onramps that continue through intersecting roads rather than joining the main lanes every time. This would allow us to cut down the number of interchanges while still allowing access everywhere.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7062  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2016, 1:35 AM
Acey Acey is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Northern Hills
Posts: 2,550
Many braided ramps are pretty much guaranteed to appear in the long-term plans when the study is done at the end of 2018. For example, they can fit 5 lanes each way under the existing 16 Ave bridges. Really they need 3rd level opposing flyovers over 16th, but in the interim build a northbound basketweave between 16th and 32nd, and you've more or less brought that stretch to an acceptable level for relatively little cost. Unfortunately in the south, the only way you can really fix Glenmore long-term is more lanes at Calf Robe and obviously more lanes over Glenmore itself.

Massive reconstruction at Anderson/Bow Bottom is also unavoidable but to avoid rebuilding Ivor Strong you have to consider stuff like big upgrades to Glenmore and Barlow as an alternate route. Remember that "Anderson Road Freeway" concept was once a thing, so you've go to take another look at making Anderson a freeway between Macleod and Deerfoot as a potential free-flow for getting south if you want to re-do the Anderson/Macleod interchange they just built, since 162 Ave will be done and a massive free-flowing systems interchange at 22X/Macleod will be done in 2021.

Fixing Deerfoot might not necessarily mean fixing Deerfoot.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7063  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2016, 5:06 AM
milomilo milomilo is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,911
You probably know this already, but the city has a design to massively upgrade 16th including adding a 3rd level.

http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation...ing-Study.aspx

This doesn't do much for Deerfoot itself though. As for the rest - yeah. Whatever it is won't be cheap. As a minimum though they have to redo Glenmore/Deerfoot, I just don't understand how a tiny cloverleaf was built there not all that long ago.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7064  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2016, 5:12 AM
Acey Acey is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Northern Hills
Posts: 2,550
I get the feeling the Glenmore and 16 Ave studies will be mostly tossed (in regards to how those roadways interface with Deerfoot) and basically be disregarded once this 2018 study is done. It's supposed to be, for the most part, the master Deerfoot document going forward.

Bottom line, we can't just pull a Houston and throw lanes at the problem thinking it will go away. They made I-10 to Katy 16 lanes wide and it's still a parking lot. At the same time, Deerfoot was built for 80k a day and it'll hit 170k this year. Even the most anti-road people must concede that you've got to do something. Even if it's just making it safer for those few hours of the day when it's not a parking lot.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7065  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2016, 5:56 AM
Corndogger Corndogger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 2,340
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
You probably know this already, but the city has a design to massively upgrade 16th including adding a 3rd level.

http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation...ing-Study.aspx

This doesn't do much for Deerfoot itself though. As for the rest - yeah. Whatever it is won't be cheap. As a minimum though they have to redo Glenmore/Deerfoot, I just don't understand how a tiny cloverleaf was built there not all that long ago.
What cloverleaf was built at Glenmore/Deerfoot in the recent past?

That entire interchange is a design disaster. The province has plans to fix it when they get the money to do so. IIRC, the plan is to build another bridge so there can be four lanes on each bridge and to make it a systems interchange but maybe not all at once. The current setup is dangerous and dumb as hell in places. NB DF to WB GM is a complete joke given how important those two roads are.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7066  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2016, 6:07 AM
milomilo milomilo is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corndogger View Post
What cloverleaf was built at Glenmore/Deerfoot in the recent past?

That entire interchange is a design disaster. The province has plans to fix it when they get the money to do so. IIRC, the plan is to build another bridge so there can be four lanes on each bridge and to make it a systems interchange but maybe not all at once. The current setup is dangerous and dumb as hell in places. NB DF to WB GM is a complete joke given how important those two roads are.
You can see the beginnings of it on the 1979 tab of this page:

https://maps.calgary.ca/Crowchild/

Not 'recent' but not ancient history either. At that point there was already decades of experience with cloverleafs, it's amazing they thought that it was an appropriate interchange to build there, especially with no room to expand either roadway.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7067  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2016, 6:15 AM
Corndogger Corndogger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 2,340
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
You can see the beginnings of it on the 1979 tab of this page:

https://maps.calgary.ca/Crowchild/

Not 'recent' but not ancient history either. At that point there was already decades of experience with cloverleafs, it's amazing they thought that it was an appropriate interchange to build there, especially with no room to expand either roadway.
What does Crowchild Trail have to do with Glenmore/Deerfoot? And 1979 is nearly 38 years ago. That is ancient history when you consider the city probably has doubled in size in that time.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7068  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2016, 6:20 AM
Acey Acey is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Northern Hills
Posts: 2,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corndogger View Post
What does Crowchild Trail have to do with Glenmore/Deerfoot?
Nothing. If you click on the link, you can see DF/Glen under construction in 1979 in the aerial photo; that stretched opened the following year, up to Heritage. The Barlow/16 Ave clover is the first one in Alberta, from the 50's. Deerfoot was extended from Glen to 22X in 1982. Not that long ago considering what others were building in 1982.

It's definitely terrible planning, but you can see why the current interchange made sense when DF ended at Heritage, and was still borderline acceptable when DF went down to 22X and Glenmore was not what it is today. They'd have laughed in your face if you told them Glenmore would carry 140,000 vehicles a day over the reservoir.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7069  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2016, 6:22 AM
milomilo milomilo is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corndogger View Post
What does Crowchild Trail have to do with Glenmore/Deerfoot? And 1979 is nearly 38 years ago. That is ancient history when you consider the city probably has doubled in size in that time.
It's just a good snapshot of the city at that point, doesn't matter that it is on the Crowchild page. You're correct, Calgary has more than doubled in population since then, but it doesn't excuse building the crappiest of interchange designs at that location, with tiny overpasses. We are now going to have to fix this at enormous expense, because as far as I can tell, nothing in the existing interchange can be reused.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7070  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2016, 6:41 AM
Acey Acey is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Northern Hills
Posts: 2,550
The lack of N-W access is because of Blackfoot Trail, which still sort of functioned as the main north-south route in the area. It seemed redundant for both to have N-W access with two full clovers within feet of each other. McKenzie Lake was there, but McKenzie Towne was not and the deep south gold rush was unanticipated. It goes back to what I was saying before about the plans not being sufficiently changed once the alignment was changed away from Bow Bottom and across the river on Ivor Strong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
We are now going to have to fix this at enormous expense, because as far as I can tell, nothing in the existing interchange can be reused.
In the Glenmore study, the existing Deerfoot mainline bridges would remain, just be rehabbed and reconfigured with a new 5 lane bridge built on the east side of them. That'd handcuff you into not being able to widen Glen underneath, is all. With the continued explosion of Glenmore since this study, it's possible they realize that Glenmore mainline would in fact need more lanes, and plan for the bridges to be entirely nuked as you suggest.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7071  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2016, 7:19 AM
Corndogger Corndogger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 2,340
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
It's just a good snapshot of the city at that point, doesn't matter that it is on the Crowchild page. You're correct, Calgary has more than doubled in population since then, but it doesn't excuse building the crappiest of interchange designs at that location, with tiny overpasses. We are now going to have to fix this at enormous expense, because as far as I can tell, nothing in the existing interchange can be reused.
I'd did click on that Crowchild link but didn't realize you wanted me to scroll over.

I totally agree that the interchange design is crappy (as are most on Deerfoot--thank the city for that stupidity) and that it will cost to fix. As far as I know the province never released any estimates for what it would cost to fix Glenmore/Deerfoot. I remember going to an open house on the project in 2009 (?) and asking an Alberta Transportation Department person what he thought it would cost and his guess was $200 to $250 million but that it would depend on what changes were made to Glenmore. My sense was that even back then the province knew Glenmore needed to be expanded. The big question is will they help to pay for it. I wish they would take over that entire road and freewayize it from end to end so Calgary would finally have an E/W freeway.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7072  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2016, 7:34 AM
Acey Acey is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Northern Hills
Posts: 2,550
DF/Glen is really the only poorly designed interchange. The split diamonds at Memorial and 16 Ave are just woefully inadequate and thus have become death traps. While a competent city would have built stacks there, a split diamond is not inherently terrible, just has no business being on the busiest road this side of Lake Ontario. Aside from the Anderson/Bow Bottom interchange which isn't bad for what it is, the others are parclos or diamonds that are fine. The cloverstacks at Stoney are obviously both fine.

In order of detriment, I'd sooner attribute Deerfoot's problems to the two lane squeezes, the proximity of interchanges to each other, the incompetence of drivers, and then smaller issues like Calf Robe being concrete and the nasty curves coming in and out of it, etc.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7073  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2016, 7:40 AM
bulliver's Avatar
bulliver bulliver is offline
So very tired...
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Downtown Edmonton
Posts: 3,736
Not sure if it has been discussed, but the movement from McKnight eastbound onto Stoney Trail northbound is awful. Damn near a u-turn. I had to slow my truck to all of 10km/h to keep it from rolling onto its side.
__________________
Support the mob or mysteriously disappear...
Ipernity | Recent SSP Photo threads:
Two Days in Winnipeg | Stuff I've seen so far this year in Edmonton | Rural Alberta Advantage | Edmonton AB - Third Quarter 2011
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7074  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2016, 7:46 AM
Acey Acey is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Northern Hills
Posts: 2,550
Yeah cause that damn bus parking lot or whatever is in the way. It's well inside the TUC so frankly I have no idea what the hell happened there. It wasn't there in ~2005 which is only a couple years before they started on the NE.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7075  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2016, 8:27 AM
Corndogger Corndogger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 2,340
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulliver View Post
Not sure if it has been discussed, but the movement from McKnight eastbound onto Stoney Trail northbound is awful. Damn near a u-turn. I had to slow my truck to all of 10km/h to keep it from rolling onto its side.
SB Stoney to EB Crowchild is also poorly designed where you have to slow down way too much to navigate that loop. Why isn't that a proper systems interchange given the importance of those two roads? I hope they upgrade that sooner or later.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7076  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2016, 9:43 AM
suburbia suburbia is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 4,609
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulliver View Post
Not sure if it has been discussed, but the movement from McKnight eastbound onto Stoney Trail northbound is awful. Damn near a u-turn. I had to slow my truck to all of 10km/h to keep it from rolling onto its side.
Partly a case of "what is with that road", and partly a case of, "why the heck do people drive trucks anyway".

Last edited by suburbia; Dec 22, 2016 at 10:28 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7077  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2016, 4:04 PM
Acey Acey is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Northern Hills
Posts: 2,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corndogger View Post
SB Stoney to EB Crowchild is also poorly designed where you have to slow down way too much to navigate that loop. Why isn't that a proper systems interchange given the importance of those two roads? I hope they upgrade that sooner or later.
Plans for third level flyovers here and at Shag were scrubbed due to cost and something of a reassessment as to what type of road requires directional flyovers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by suburbia View Post
Partly a case of "what is with that road", and partly a case of, "why the heck do people drive trucks anyway".
100% a case of that being way below standard, and them counting on money to construct the loop ramp (for which grading is already done) before the movement becomes a problem.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7078  
Old Posted Dec 24, 2016, 1:12 AM
bulliver's Avatar
bulliver bulliver is offline
So very tired...
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Downtown Edmonton
Posts: 3,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by suburbia View Post
Partly a case of "what is with that road", and partly a case of, "why the heck do people drive trucks anyway".
Well, speaking personally, I drive a truck because people keep buying crap and that's how it gets to the store.....
__________________
Support the mob or mysteriously disappear...
Ipernity | Recent SSP Photo threads:
Two Days in Winnipeg | Stuff I've seen so far this year in Edmonton | Rural Alberta Advantage | Edmonton AB - Third Quarter 2011
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7079  
Old Posted Dec 28, 2016, 5:49 AM
craner's Avatar
craner craner is offline
Go Tall or Go Home
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,511
^
Good answer Bulliver.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7080  
Old Posted Dec 29, 2016, 9:36 PM
DoubleK DoubleK is offline
#YYC
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 456
Quote:
Originally Posted by speedog View Post
Maybe the best and easiest solution would be to just it call Highway 201.
Not sure why we don't follow the example in Phoenix with their ring road naming convention. The ring roads down here aren't that different than Stoney in that they are on or in close proximity to federal land.

Loop 201 should be the name.
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 2:03 AM.

     

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