Calgary Stoney Trail [Ring Road]

[Ferreth]

I'm back from two weeks on the coast and was wondering what all the chatter was about in here all of a sudden regarding the excessive build for the SWRR.

I have to say, those two videos that set off this discussion have to be some of the worst PR I have ever seen for new highway construction. Look at all the trees we are going to wipe out! Look at the nice ditch we are going to put under the road for Elbow and Fish Creek! Look at the huge swath of space we are not going to build anything on at all.

Hopefully with further evaluation some of the infrastructure can be cut while still satisfying our contractual obligations / 20 year traffic needs.

Did anyone catch that on the west ring road, Crestmont is completely cut off on these maps? They'll all have to walk to downtown! I'm guessing they are going to re-connect going up the hill rather than running access right beside the TCH?

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

This will never happen. I can guarantee you that traffic lights on the mainline of Stoney will never happen again. The ones on Anthony Henday, and the ones initially done at Harvest Hills Boulevard and 17th Avenue were short lived solutions (<5 years), so there is absolutely no point in pursuing this.

That's my entire point.

We decided what, how and where we are going to build before we proved we needed it in the first place.

These were decided in principal decades ago with minimal reconsideration at any alternatives. Calgary didn't have a C-train, LRT wasn't heard of when we came up with this thing. Condominums weren't either. Calgary had 1/3rd the population it does today when the Ring Road idea was first floated. People live in areas and ways in this city that weren't on any map or plan until decades after this idea was agreed on. "We need a full ring and god-damn-it we will have one!" was the attitude.

These shaky underpinning are the foundation of the entire SWRR project.

But that is not the only problem. Now, that we have decided to go ahead, we decided to build at a certain standard without thinking about what standard is actually required to offer an acceptable benefit. The assumptions - as they are shaky anyways - are merely adjusted to fit this standard, not reality or alternatives we could look at.

You could build lights at every intersection and it would still offer a big improvement by the logic of these underpinnings; if the route is so much better, important and correct above all alternatives that are possible, that we have been blindly following it on a plan for 50 years, it will offer enough benefit to build it and upgrade as needed.

That doesn't cost $5B.

[MalcolmTucker]

It is a lot cheaper to build without any active traffic. A new interchange on the QE2 is coming in at ~$200 million when somewhat comparable ones on the SE stoney had marginal costs in the $50 million range.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by fusili

My point isn't that the road won't be used, it's that the design is so over-the-top for what it does. 2 free-flow lanes, single lane off-ramps at most intersections and just a general reduction in the width of the ROW and the size of bridges can drastically reduce costs. This just seems massively overbuilt.

Originally Posted by Allan83

I fully agree there.

Originally Posted by DoubleK

Agreed. It's definitely not fit for purpose, more like a transportation design engineer's wet dream.

Originally Posted by MasterG

There is no evidence that this route will have any of the same traffic patterns as the rest of the ring. Not all parts of the ring are the same, nor do they have to be completed because it looks better. Each section is it's own project and should have to stand up to scrutiny on it's own. We can't export the traffic counts between Seton and 16th Ave N to 22x to Glenmore, the patterns bear nothing in common.

Question for the overbuilt crowd, if you got your wish and the project was scaled back, what would expect to do with the money?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Cage

Question for the overbuilt crowd, if you got your wish and the project was scaled back, what would expect to do with the money?

NCLT, buried up to 24th at least. SELRT. Downtown subway for all lines. No shortage of options that daily, would help improve transport for tens of thousands more than this overbuilt cash dump would.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

NCLT, buried up to 24th at least. SELRT. Downtown subway for all lines. No shortage of options that daily, would help improve transport for tens of thousands more than this overbuilt cash dump would.

The LRT and transit network is a city priority not a provincial priority. It's is not reasonable to expect that the province to transfer cash from ring road and to public transit.

The more appropriate example would be to just reduce spending overall ( eg the fiscal conservative approach) like Wildrose platform and Canadian Taxpayers Federation. Another alternative is to find more provincial priorities like twinning highway 63 or highway 43.

[Allan83]

I propose a trade! The conditions of the agreement with TT Nation must be satisfied, of course, but after that I propose that the remaining money be given to the City of Calgary in return for Calgary taking over the responsibility for upgrading the SWRR in the future according to mutually agreed upon standards. I.e., when traffic counts get to a certain number the city agrees to use its own money to upgrade the roads. If our experts here are right and the road won’t need to be upgraded for a long time then we come out ahead. This transfers the risk to the governing body presumably best qualified to assess it and manage it. (The assumption is that because this is right next to our city our transportation engineers will have a better understanding our growth patterns and future traffic counts.)

If that trade-off was accepted I would spend the money on the Green Line, starting with the SETWAY down to Ogden, and maybe put some money into the proposed new BRT routes as well.

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

It is a lot cheaper to build without any active traffic. A new interchange on the QE2 is coming in at ~$200 million when somewhat comparable ones on the SE stoney had marginal costs in the $50 million range.

I drive by the construction of that new interchange everyday and I'm not sure why a parclo costs that much. They're paying the price for the Ellerslie Road interchange being so shitty to begin with. Isn't the Stoney NE/Deerfoot megaplex a $100 million interchange? It's crazy.

[craner]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

This will never happen. I can guarantee you that traffic lights on the mainline of Stoney will never happen again. The ones on Anthony Henday, and the ones initially done at Harvest Hills Boulevard and 17th Avenue were short lived solutions (<5 years), so there is absolutely no point in pursuing this.

I hope you're right (and I believe you are for this project).
DO NOT build this "freeway" with signalized intersections - PLEASE!
As you say, I think they have learned from past experiences.

[RyLucky]

Why don't they build the bridges over Elbow and Fish Creek in a similar way to how they built Stoney Tr over the Bow in the NW? This is relative noninvasive compared to "erasing" a path through nature. Much more modest with only one bridge too:
photo by Peter http://www.photography.ca/Forums/arc...e-calgary.html


Edit: Oh wait, they are planning to spend $100M twinning this part too. *headsmack*

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

16 lanes total in the Ultimate stage (8 now and 8 later, in theory).

401:

Calgary should aim to never have this. ever.

[RyLucky]

Their PR should be a lot more specific about how environmental mediation throughout the entire leg. I'm sure folks in Aspen would prefer to save as many "aspens" as possible.

They've chosen some pretty flamboyant interchange designs in areas with high land value. This entire thing could probably use 1/2 as much land as it does. They've designed it as through land cost were negligible - like it's in the middle of rural Alberta. The entire route (except through the reserve) is highly developable.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

Why don't they build the bridges over Elbow and Fish Creek in a similar way to how they built Stoney Tr over the Bow in the NW? This is relative noninvasive compared to "erasing" a path through nature. Much more modest with only one bridge too.

My uninformed guestimate is the WRR and SWRR diagrams are base cost to produce the roadwork. Providing a longer span bridge will cost most more money.

For arguments sake, lets peg the current plan at 100 million and bridge at 200 million. If the bridge is within the original cost , everyone along the political spectrum will hate the plan. However, put the base plan at lower cost and let the various special interest groups fight amongst themselves and a consensus decision is possible. The CTF/Wildrose folk will go for the lower cost option and the save weaslehead folk will go for the highest cost option.

Here is another probability, if the initial design was for a bridge, the environmental folks would be demanding a bored twin tunnel. But with the current option, the tunnel idea is off the table.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

Their PR should be a lot more specific about how environmental mediation throughout the entire leg. I'm sure folks in Aspen would prefer to save as many "aspens" as possible.

They've chosen some pretty flamboyant interchange designs in areas with high land value. This entire thing could probably use 1/2 as much land as it does. They've designed it as through land cost were negligible - like it's in the middle of rural Alberta. The entire route (except through the reserve) is highly developable.

The land except through the reserve was bought in the 80s, after a court case decided it was legal to expropriate and hold for future developments and lease back (or impose purchase options). There will be pipelines, utility stations, and power lines on the corridor, so they can avoid being very close to developed areas. On the east side of the city you've already seen new pipelines in the corridor instead of upgrading old pipes further in to distribute gas. Some of the oil and gas pipelines will be abandoned, some will become parts of the local distribution network.

The whole point was planning in advance, reserving land for future unforeseen uses. Perhaps in 50 years we will have a second orbital LRT on the ring road corridor.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Cage

My uninformed guestimate is the WRR and SWRR diagrams are base cost to produce the roadwork. Providing a longer span bridge will cost most more money.

For arguments sake, lets peg the current plan at 100 million and bridge at 200 million. If the bridge is within the original cost , everyone along the political spectrum will hate the plan. However, put the base plan at lower cost and let the various special interest groups fight amongst themselves and a consensus decision is possible. The CTF/Wildrose folk will go for the lower cost option and the save weaslehead folk will go for the highest cost option.

Here is another probability, if the initial design was for a bridge, the environmental folks would be demanding a bored twin tunnel. But with the current option, the tunnel idea is off the table.

There is political consensus to get this built at the provincial level. Agitation is around more all direction interchanges, not removing features. The current Wildrose urban MLAs ridings will be the amongst the greatest 'winners' from this project, as will be some of there donors in the land development industry.

If I was designing a 'voter universe' for the Wildrose for the next election I would put 'ring road users' in as a core constituency. If they don't win them, they won't have a hope of an urban breakthrough. For the PCers, that voter block is like a dam holding back the Wildrose. Fortunately those same voters really want new schools, a lot more schools than the Wildrose can ever reasonably put in a political platform.

Around the edges changes are pretty easy to do at this stage. All you need to do is add 'wildlife corridor protection' to the scoring criteria, so if one bidder comes back with a far superior protection plan but it costs $10 million (or whatever more, or maybe less, who knows) more overall you can still award the bid to them.

Plus there is a difference between the delta lands (which are not part of the reserve) and a perfectly typical ravine in terms of the degree of environmental protection needed to not cause undue spill over effects.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

The land except through the reserve was bought in the 80s, after a court case decided it was legal to expropriate and hold for future developments and lease back (or impose purchase options). There will be pipelines, utility stations, and power lines on the corridor, so they can avoid being very close to developed areas. On the east side of the city you've already seen new pipelines in the corridor instead of upgrading old pipes further in to distribute gas. Some of the oil and gas pipelines will be abandoned, some will become parts of the local distribution network.

The whole point was planning in advance, reserving land for future unforeseen uses. Perhaps in 50 years we will have a second orbital LRT on the ring road corridor.

An effective 300 m ROW seems excessive. Sarcee gets by on 140 m ROW (except at Westhills, were it balloons to a wasteful 200 m ROW for no reason, turning "crossing the road" into a 15 minute trek), including gas lines, and there is plenty of room to spare. Crowchild is around 40 m is the SW! Anderson gets by on 80 m. Deerfoot is about 90 m in the SE, although the effective setback from Deerfoot in the NE varies widely.

Most jurisdictions in Canada must "consult" within a 100 m radius of pipelines, but only prohibit ground disturbance within 30 m - probably less that the width this highway will ever require.

In 50 m, you can fit 6 traffic lanes and a bidirectional LRT. Why would the ring road ever need more than 60 m? You could probably deliver the same service for a fraction of a cost, disturb far less land, save hundreds of acres of forest, free up land for development, prevent creating a giant pedestrian wall around the city, and most importantly, not make the same mistakes on that edge of the city that we made on highways in the last century.

[RyLucky]

^^^ thanks. So... until we decide that 8 lanes aren't enough and we need 16, that will be 109.2 m medians? Couldn't fit utilities in there somewhere?

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

^^^ thanks. So... until we decide that 8 lanes aren't enough and we need 16, that will be 109.2 m medians? Couldn't fit utilities in there somewhere?

Can you explain a bit more on relocates? Why would you want to pay to move the utilities twice? They are already being relocated to the Utility component from their current location.

Originally Posted by RyLucky

Deerfoot is about 90 m in the SE, although the effective setback from Deerfoot in the NE varies widely.

And far too many people die on the joke that is Deerfoot Trail, so the idea is generally to do the exact opposite of Deerfoot Trail, I would think. 30 m medians seem wasteful but serve a purpose.

[RyLucky]

This is a very long project. Every meter of width we can avoid using will save acres of aspen forest and reduce land costs.

Originally Posted by DoubleK

Can you explain a bit more on relocates? Why would you want to pay to move the utilities twice? They are already being relocated to the Utility component from their current location.

Can you please reword? I don't understand what you mean.

Originally Posted by Acey

And far too many people die on the joke that is Deerfoot Trail, so the idea is generally to do the exact opposite of Deerfoot Trail, I would think. 30 m medians seem wasteful but serve a purpose.

Really? How often do cars jump a concrete barrier? I would think the exact opposite of deerfoot is no highway.